Board Thread:General Discussions/@comment-1438304-20140408182949/@comment-3367060-20140408235636

Croc117 wrote:

Titanollante wrote:

Croc117 wrote:

Titanollante wrote:

Croc117 wrote:

Titanollante wrote:

Croc117 wrote:

Titanollante wrote:

Croc117 wrote:

Titanollante wrote: Croc is technically right... let's change the characters and Muto, but not the film. Actually the Movie wouldn't be Toho's either. They aren't involved in the actual making of the movie, they only have the distribution rights. It's like Godzilla 1998, Toho now has right's to the creature, but the movie isn't their property. The Legendary Godzilla design will one day be their's barring any unforeseen events, but even that won't be theirs until Legendary loses the right's to the Godzilla Franchise, which hasn't actually happened yet, and technically could possibly not ever happen under several circumstances, 1998 =/= 2014. So, the 2014 film is still going to say Toho there. I just don't think Toho should be listed equally with Legendary when they are not actually involved in the making of the film, they are just a distribution partner. It's a Legendary pictures Film, not a Toho/Legendary collaboration. If the two Studios worked together to make the movie, then it would be accurate to list it as a "Legendary/ Toho" picture, but as Legendary and Warner Bros. are the only studios actually involved in the production. Godzilla 1998 is only listed a "Tristar Kaju Film" despite the rights to the creature going back to Toho. While the creature because theirs because it was originally "Godzilla", they didn't get the rights to the actual movie which stayed with the original producers of the film. Your points are very, very true, but it's not getting changed. Is their a specific reason why? I just want to know. It's just a kick at 1998, since Toho's representatives overwhelmingly hated it. If the new film sucks and everyone including Toho hates it, only then will the "Toho" be removed. Ummm, I really don't think that's a good reason why to put it on or leave it off. A Wiki should be based on facts, even if we don't like the facts, If they made the movie then their names should be on it, even if it sucks, if they weren't involved in the movie and it's great, even if it's based off something they created, then Toho shouldn't be on it.

The fact is, Toho isn't not involved in the movie at all beyond the distribution of it in Japan, stating that Godzilla (2014) is a Toho film in any respect beyond they are distributing it, is factually incorrect. Distributing isn't the only thing. Rights, Yoshimitsu Banno, Akira Takarada, and Godzilla, plus design approval and supervision (and of course distribution). They sure are more involved than they were with 1998, which only had approval, distribution and rights, and that's about it.

You're right still, but it's not being changed. But it's not a Toho film. Akira Takrada and the use of Toho's creature does not make it their film. Akira Takarada is just an actor, and his presence doesn't mean Toho is involved. Toho actually did have input on the 1998 Godzilla design, it wasn't until after the movie was released in theaters that they disinherited. Toho may have some level of input, that is a courtesy offered to them by Legendary. but it doesn't make it their monster. Edwards actually make it a point that this monster is not considered on of Toho's he said "I'd love ours to be considered as part of the Toho group." that implies that it is not considered part of the group right now.

Also the presence of Yoshimitsu Banno in and of itself doesn't make Toho involved unless he's working on Toho's behalf while producing the movie.

If the information is not correct, then it shouldn't be on the artical. It's not a Toho movie so it shouldn't be listed as one. I really don't see why it's part of it at all, other than to "Kick at 1998". You're good      at changing minds.