Talk:Shin Godzilla

Post-release section

Hello. As a reader I don't understand mentioning the relevance of the anime trilogy in the post-release section. What does it have to do with Shin Godzilla? Popcornfud (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's notable because Higuchi verified that Toho can't legally release a live-action film until 2020 but after 2016, Toho did release three Godzilla films regardless, albeit animated. So it's something worth mentioning. Granted, we are not gonna add every single subsequent Toho film released after 2016. Just the ones relevant to the period between 2016–2020. It's relevant because the franchise is built upon sequel after sequel. There will always be expectations of potential sequels to Godzilla films, much like people now expect sequels for Marvel films or 007 films. It's a pretty cut and dry situation: the sub-sect. just notes that Toho did not produce a sequel to Shin but Toho did release this and that film the following years, etc. Armegon (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that explanation. As a reader who only has a passing knowledge of the franchise this was not really clear to me. Godzilla is a famous franchise so I would expect studios to keep releasing movies whether they're continuations or not.

And as I said in the edit summary, I think the use of "despite" is inappropriate editorialising, because there's nothing in either the article as it stands or the provided source to explain why releasing animated films should appear contrary to expectations or Toho's legal obligations. (It says they can't make live-action films, not animated films.)

Frankly I still don't see the need to mention the trilogy, as they have seemingly nothing to do with Shin Gojira and focusing on releases between 2016–2020 feels arbitrary. Additionally, the info on the trilogy is inserted between Higuchi's statement about a possible sequel and then a statement from Toho that it wouldn't produce a sequel, which feel like related pieces of information, so it's a shame to break them up.

Nonetheless if we want to keep the trilogy, can I suggest this slightly tighter wording? This removes the editorialising, simplifies the dates (we don't need to specify months in this article), and removes the redundancy of saying "beginning with..." (we know a trilogy begins with a film if that's the first film in the trilogy).

In July 2017, Higuchi attended G-Fest XXIV and said that Toho could not make another Godzilla film until after 2020. This was due to Toho's contract with Legendary Entertainment, which restricts Toho from releasing a live-action Godzilla film in the same year as Legendary's Godzilla films; Legendary released Godzilla: King of the Monsters in 2019 and will release Godzilla vs. Kong in 2021. Higuchi noted that Legendary's contract had expired in 2020.

After Shin Godzilla, Toho released a trilogy of anime Godzilla films: Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters (2017), Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle (2018), and Godzilla: The Planet Eater (2018). In May 2018, Toho announced that it would not make a sequel to Shin Godzilla, but would instead establish a shared universe model similar to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

How is that? Popcornfud (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In many film articles, we mention possible sequels, etc. In this case, it was a very successful movie in Japan and so a sequel would be expected, I think. So, I would disagree about trimming out the details already present. If it is not clear to the user, then it does need to be rewritten, but I think the Toho deal, etc. is relevant. Please do not remove it. Rewrite, make it better, all that of course is ok. Alaney2k (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this revision. Armegon (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-add it. FWIW this is basically how I already wrote it, but you reverted that. Popcornfud (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. Apologies. I did not read it because my mind went to defense/offense mode the moment I saw the red numbers lol a lesson for me to read and check before I revert. Armegon (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. happy holidays. Popcornfud (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mixed Reviews"

At multiple points of this article it cites an inquisitor (sketchy source at best) article saying this film recieved "mixed reviews from Western critics." It is sitting at 85% certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes right now, with only western reviews counted. This should be changed throughout the article. Choppyjoe (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

OPPOSED. This just sounds like fanboy whining than constructively addressing a serious issue. Inquisitr is verified enough to merit its own Wiki article and they've given no reason to question their reliability. Additionally, the RT score stands at 85% based only on 73 counted reviews. Edwards' Godzilla has 325 counted reviews on RT. Dougherty's King of the Monsters has 342. I'm sure if RT counted more reviews for Shin, that 86% score would drop significantly to a mixed score, but I digress. The mixed response by the Inquisitor stays per WP:QUO until there is consensus to remove it. Armegon (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is to remove it. You been trying to attack the movie with fake reports. Do you have proof that the score would drop if Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic had added more reviews? You don't. So the two aggregate sites agreed that it has an overall positive western reaction.

The outliner? You.

It's against the rules to make false edits based on personal feelings; it's clear you are attacking the movie by calling people fanboy. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing the international reaction

The two main aggregates that define whether a movie is shown to be positive or negative critical reaction have been positive for a long time now. Multiple people have voiced their concerns, but a single user (Armegon) is trying to control the narrative based on personal feelings. He's made personal attacks by calling users who disagree fanboys and tried to stifle criticism of their own edits. Therefore, the edits will be made.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/shin-godzilla-godzilla-resurgence/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godzilla_resurgence Bigbossbalrog (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I specified the Rotten Tomato Score had enough to qualify as a "fresh" rating", they deleted my edit. Which shows they are removing factually true things. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:QUO and WP:3RR, do not restore your edits until consensus is reached. You were bold, I challenged it, now consensus is required. And removing the additional sources that back up the mixed responses is straight up disruptive editing, per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: “repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.” And before you go accusing any one of “ownership”, read up on WP:SHEPHERD — some users, such as myself, have an intellectual interest - outside of admiration - in certain articles and make an effort to prevent disruptive editing, like the type you engaged in. Including adding material not covered by the sources, like “polarizing” responses, which is in violation of WP:SYN.

I do not know where you get off by calling me biased. You’re the one removing material that provides an alternative critical reception outside of Japan and fans. And I never called you or anyone a fanboy directly. So don’t add words to my mouth. Not everyone thinks Shin-G is a masterpiece. Meta critic claims, somewhat prematurely, “favorable reviews” based on 14 critics. I say prematurely because 14 critics is hardly a definite verification of generally positive reviews. Clearly, it’s missing loads of reviews. Likewise, Rotten Tomatoes reports its score based on 73 reviews. It says Fresh, not generally positive. And the recent scathing reports on how RT measures reviews and scores should discourage editors from using aggregators to determine the general critical response. Matter of fact…

MOS:FILMCRITICS does discourage it: “The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize review”. Take Godzilla vs. Kong, Metacritic reported a response of mixed or average yet we found and cited two sources that confirm a generally positive response [1], [2].

This issue is pretty cut and dry, MOS:FILMCRITICS clearly states to cite reliable sources to determine overall critical reception, which is exactly what I did but some aren’t willing to accept it even when one reliable source is cited. Hence why I added 4 more sources to drive it home. RT and Meta are for data ratios. Armegon (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

And I'm disputing those are reliable sources and things you just drew out of your pocket to confirm your confirmation bias.

And I could post countless positive reviews. The aggregate determines the reaction; those reviews are the ones curated by the websites to matter. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are sources that summarize reviews; and they are labelled as positive. Metacritic generally has a smaller amount of reviews because it attributes only big websites. Fresh is an indicator that a percentage of "top" critics have given it a positive review; which yes, it means "generally favorable"

"This just sounds like fanboy whining than constructively addressing a serious issue." You've resorted to personal attacks already. You are clearly trying to push an agenda that is your own, and discounting the facts. You've done it to other users because you think you have the right to determine what is received as positive or not.

Those additional sources are things you quickly searched up; websites that don't feature the qualifications for these articles. I will be removing them and changing your edits because you are being willfully igorant. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are more then enough to qualify as positive; you don't have any evidence that mixed reviews aren't being attributed to a review pool of 73. Post receipts.

"Not everyone thinks Shin-G is a masterpiece." That's the problem; you don't get to decide that; it's based on an aggregate which has been shown to be overall positive.

Bigbossbalrog (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO STOP EDIT WARRING! STOP restoring your edits before consensus is reached. Follow the guidelines of WP:QUO, WP:DE, and WP:3RR. If you continue being disruptive by restoring your edits like you said you would, then you’re gonna get blocked from Wikipedia. The way you’re carrying on is not gonna bode well for you. Armegon (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine, we'll wait for other users to mediate and hear what they say. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I should also warn you to keep a level head and assume good faith. You accuse me of imaginary personal attacks but you outright called me “ignorant”. That conduct doesn’t fly on Wiki and you’ll get into just as much trouble. Follow WP:PA and WP:PILLARS, and cool it. Armegon (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)