Board Thread:General Discussions/@comment-31524712-20170319210335/@comment-31669899-20170405221432

Regardless of the Kong you're talking about, you're incorrect in that assertation.

The original RKO Kong was initially conceptualized as a half-man, half-beast. Obviously they opted for a more ape-like appearance in the end, but Kong was always intended to be a monster. Also, even that Kong isn't a gorilla, it's also it's own unnamed species.

05 Kong, as aforementioned, is it's own completely fictional species.

I think what this issue boils down to is the severe lack of criteria of what is a kaiju. At it's most literal, it means strange beast, that's it. Those two words are open to huge interpretation on what would constitute a kaiju, or not.

Personally, I feel that we should only consider fictional creatures kaiju. This isn't to say that a real life animal couldn't actually be a kaiju in a film, but there would need to be some sort of extreme to it that causes it to fall out of the realm of plausibility, or reality (dogs that shoot bees out of their mouth when they bark for example).

If we want to consider Bruce a kaiju because it presents atypical behaviour and is smarter and larger than your average great white, then why not say the animals from Disney movies are kaiju as well? Animals talk to other animal species, talk to humans, sing, dance, and all sorts of other things that those real life animal counterparts are not capable of.

If you don't set some sort of criteria then practically everything could be a kaiju and the word would lose all meaning.