The Godzilla Expanded Universe: How We Should Take It

Okay, how about this then? Anything touted as relevant material to the main medium by the creators and/or advertising, we can use for debates, but otherwise it is left up to the thread creator's choice. The best of both worlds. Things like literature and whatnot will be used if stated to be applicable by the creators/advertising, no exceptions. Not even for me.

I'm willing to give in to your demands if you uphold your end of the bargain by not discrediting sources officially stated and/or advertised as officially relevant, understand?

With this in mind, I will forgo using the novelization if the thread creator says so, but the Awakening prequel comic, being specifically advertised as a prequel comic to the 2014 film, is therefore allowed, since its advertising touts it as part of the official canon, serving as a prelude to the film's events.

Only problem is that now every thread creator has to be specific and since GorillaGodzilla references both the Awakening comic and the novel when he lists feats chances are, knowing the thread creator that won't happen. Point is you can keep looking at the other sources all you want but to most people that actually debate your referencing of the other material won't be taken seriously. This is pretty much run by majority rather than a set rule if the majority that take part don't consider something cannon then the X% that does doesn't really have much to say.

There are so many holes in the Awakening storyline that discredit it to the movie that I could make a thread about it, like different back story to Godzilla, no referense of Shuromura, ect. Point is once again the "prequel" name was just to sell copies and advertise the movie, then the movie ignored pretty much everything in it. This is actually the perfect example of something being made advertise while not being in the main cannon. The funny thing is the writer wrote the script for G14 and he still didn't include any referense to the work.

I don't care if you guys don't take my referencing seriously. Legally speaking, if the alternate sources are confirmed or advertised as relevant, than they are. If I happen to use them but you don't, that's your problem. Doesn't matter your personal preferences. It's just fact. That means that if Toho or Legendary or whoever else says something outside the films matter, they matter. The believability or canonicity doesn't factor into the equation of the legitimate facts if the creators say otherwise, which they apparently have before.

I'm all in favour of supplementary material not being factored into debates if the creators don't have anything to say about it now, but in the case of them actually saying they're relevant, majority ruling simply cannot factor in, because then it's majority ruling against official word of God, and therefore official fact.

And since Legendary Pictures officially touts Awakening as a prequel, no matter the intent to sell, it doesn't matter. It's officially a prequel, which means all the facts presented in it are relevant to a debate revolving around its characters and settings. Even if just merchandise, because it's advertised as a prequel to the 2014 movie, that's Legendary Pictures saying that what happened in it matters to the movie.

You keep using the word legas as though there are laws that state how cannonicity and debates work, Fact is, because you add "legal" to your doesn't make it any more credible especially in this sense it just comes across as funny.

You also keep talking about toho/legendary saying things matter, what is this. Is simply getting the permission to use the character insinuating an implied consent that those products matter or do people actually have to come forward and say they support these things. If it's the latter then please show me quotes and interviews for legendary that say these extra offhand merchandise matter and connect to the real product, and are relevant.

There are official toys that get released with movies all the time but you're fine with not counting those and considering them one offs simply with the point of advertising, or for fun. That works both ways.

If cannonicity doesn't matter what's the point? basically any fanfiction that has a publisher behind it suddenly becomes credible sources at that point. The fact is most debates also look at cannonicty which was your whole Halo point that those books, comics ect, were cannon according to the creator, so if something isn't and logically can't be cannon there's no point bringing it up, as it doesn't relate to anything that matters in the series. The amount of mangas/ comics that have been released for these movies in Japan is staggering to the point that very few if anyone probably has a good knowledge of them all. To that extent you can't find a lot of the info online, so rather than just use sources everyone knows about or can easiliy access like the movies by including other content you bring lack of credibility. If I said a manga came out in the 70s that Godzilla grew planet sized and fought an earth destroying monster you couldn't say anything because as far as you know it might have happened, and there's no way to check it since wikizilla and other sites don't go in depth if talk about mangas and comics at all, by the same token I have no way to prove it does exist if you question it for all the same reasons.

So by trying to use these alternate universe sources you essentially make the stories and sources so convoluted and vast that there is no way to fact check. Whereas when you keep it simple and just look at movies, that you can find on the internet or at least see in depth synompsis there are things to say. The extra things don't add clarity they add clutter, and now rather than have base sources everyone knows we go into dark things where essentially who can call the best bluff or has the most random japanese comics from the 70s-90s wins. And please don't act like this doesn't happen to other series that have huge amounts of extra content from different media, before lucas retconned everything in star wars but the films the amount of BS that got pulled up in strongest sith/ jedi debates was ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, or that I like it, Durp004. What GMan2887 brought up sounds like something extremely convoluted, stupid, and quite irrelevant in terms of the intent of the creators the films when compared to the intent of the supplementary materials.

The same is less true of Legendary Pictures' expanded materials, but the same principle applies regardless. What I'm saying is that if the official higher-ups say the thing matters, regardless if it's purely for advertising, narratively doesn't make sense in-canon, or whatever other reasons, we can't argue with that.

The way GMan2887 put it, it sounded as if Toho had actually gone out of their way to say that such supplementary material in the past was relevant. If they didn't, then fine, I won't even bat an eyelash over them. However, with Awakening, the comic is touted by Legendary Pictures as a prequel to their film, and they haven't gone out of their way to say otherwise. Now, even if this is for marketing purposes, it still paints the comic as a relevant supplement to the movie. Unlike their other merchandise like toys and whatnot, the advertising of the comic is specifically as a prequel comic to the film, plastered all over the place that it's always in your face about how much of a prequel comic it is.

"What I'm saying is that if the official higher-ups say the thing matters, regardless if it's purely for advertising, narratively doesn't make sense in-canon, or whatever other reasons, we can't argue with that."

But you have to hear them say it. Just because it's got an "official" stamp on it doesn't make it canonical and not taking in the contradictions regulate fans to obedient zombies. According to you we've gone from "respecting other people's supplementary garbage" to "respect whatever Toho or Legendary says."

That's nonsense. If the filmmakers have intended something that owners later contradict, we know exactly what's going on here. Until I find the interview where Ishiro Honda says his Godzilla had regenerative capabilities or Edwards says Godzilla fires plasma it is not relevant or true.

If the Foo Fighters write a song and say it means one thing and then their label claims it really means another, I'm now supposed to believe the label?

To go off of what Gman2887 said, the best example of the "official label " isn't true, that would be the official Godzilla compendium book. It's a good starters book, but a lot of "facts"  are wrong. 

"That's nonsense. If the filmmakers have intended something that owners later contradict, we know exactly what's going on here."

But that's just it, GMan2887. The owners have the final say on the matter. If what they say completely contradicts the intents of the creators, then it's tough luck on them. The owners of the licensing ultimately decide what matters where, with the creators' opinions and intents being secondary to theirs.

I don't like it anymore than you do, and would love for the creators themselves to have the last word. I mean, it's pretty clear even Godzilla had quite a bit of executive meddling. But the owners are the owners for a reason. They own the brand, the licensing, everything. They decide what is and isn't in their products.

Now, yes, Ben, having the official "stamp of approval" is different than outright saying something is or isn't relevant, but when they DO say something on the matter, we have to take THEIR word for it above the creators, since they officially own the product that they had the creators produce, and decide its ultimate fate in regards to matters like these.

Don't mistake me defending this point for liking it. I may personally be okay with Awakening and the novelization, but the practice itself is sketchy. I do agree that creators SHOULD have the last say on such matters, but they don't in actuality.

^The problem is that's not true and Star Wars and Star Trek proved how irrelevent the material is. A studio and owner can say one thing, but if it comes down to retconing it for the sake of material in the main medium then obviously their "stamp of approval" is irrelevant.

The legality regarding that does not take presidence over the creator's especially when that is just as well documented-- In many cases documented better and more thoroughly and the studio knows it. Notice on DVD commentaries when a movie is older and a historian/fan of the material is voicing it there's a disclaimer about how their views do not reflect the studio's. It's because they're an outside party. However, when it is a director or crew member, there is no such disclaimer. Meaning their words very well do reflect it and what they say goes.

Now, although neither Honda or Edwards did an audio commentary they were interviewed many times over the years and expressed their intention with their films without any disclaimer. Honda was a company man and constantly under contract with Toho, so we know his words were always under some sort of... "oath" if you will.

It can not be said that the views of the filmmakers are not in some way relevant, more relevant or even "legally" true, as you like to put it. I'll agree that studios can contradict, but not override.

I'm not saying the creators have no say at all. I'm just saying that because it isn't "their" product at the end of the day, the parent company's higher-ups will have most of the authority concerning matters of the relevance of supplementary materials in contrast to the main product, and sometimes vice versa.

For example, James Gunn, director of Guardians of the Galaxy, once commented that the Guardians weren't going to show up in any Avengers films. Now, obviously, he wasn't being completely literal, but this stance was his own regardless. The higher-ups were quick to refute this.

I think we should conclude this matter, now. I'm tired of us not agreeing with each other, knowing that we'll never fully see each other's side of the argument. However, at the end of the day, I still expect you guys to respect and NOT discredit such additional sources in the future so viciously. I get it. The films are the most important things. But this anti-expanded materials campaign just isn't working for me. If you guys can't even accept me prioritizing film canon over expanded canon, I can't call this community a good place to debate with you guys.

I get that you guys work with only the main mediums, but I don't. I like to have extra context and be able to further quantify my arguments by any means possible, so that it isn't just my own opinonated observations, but educated guesses with extra sources to back me up. That means looking for any technicalities I can work with, such as Awakening being advertised as an official prequel, or things in the novelization that actually thoroughly explain things that can't be explained in the film.

Also, in case you guys try to tell me that Awakening doesn't matter, I hereby direct you all to this:

An article with multiple sources, links, and a video, detailing the comic as an official tie-in prequel to the film.

According to Gareth's own words, the comic will "pave the way to the movie". Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty sure his intents are clear. The graphic novel is officially relevant to the film.

I actually love that video. Let's take a look at it shall we? Gareth never refers to the book as a prequel to his movie in that video he says, "the official godzilla graphic novel from legendary comics that will pave the way for the film is may."

At no point does he say prequel, and the phrase "paving the way" can be looked at a few ways. 1. It sets up the character and story. 2 advertises and gets people excited for the upcoming film. 

Since once the film was released it made no mention of anything in the comic, rectonned the crap out of it's story I think the phrase was clear. He advertised the comic to advertise his movie, not advertise the story. That was a very careful choice of wording from him, the point was the this was a prequel book but he just says its a godzilla book from legendary comics.

Your logic with debates seems somewhat strange. You admit that if the parent company acknowledges something it matters regardless of the cannonicity of the work however say that films supercede these facts that other media puts out. Problem is that if it doesn't matter if they're cannon then it wouldn't make sense that movies supercede them. The books are their own things if not cannon so everything in them would also have to be looked at even if going against what the movie showed, since you seem to think that the company with rights has final say that means anything they give the go ahead to comes to equal play at that point. The movies, books, and comics are all equal and none of the facts cancel out or take priority over the others since the companies say they all matter that would mean they all matter equally unless the company specifies which one is more important(once again using your logic of if they don't specifically point something out then we can't know forsure). So now we have to look at a 400 ft tall G14 since he's that way in the book and even if the movie says otherwise since the book is official and advertised by legendary we have to look at it's specifications to the character as much as the movie.

Just pointing out the flaws your rules and laws to debates bring. At least when we only look at movies it's a set thing that everyone can follow rather than this strange equation where, everything company makes relevant+ noncannon things matter= movies above all in terms of rules but other things count if not specifically going against movies however only if the movie specifically points it out otherwise we have no way of knowing and must assume it's true.

Notice, however, that Gareth says that, AND pretty much every source states Awakening as an official prequel tie-in. Plus, the problem I'm having with you guys is that, when I want to quantify my observations with more than just those observations which can easily be discredited by ruling of majority despite said majority not having any more justification on their own observations, I get shut down.

I GET IT. You guys can't accept supplementary material being brought into the fold unless the creators explicitly tell you and/or infer that they've been brought into the fold.  

But you know what? I actually want to make a strong argument with multiple sources to further quantify my observations so that they don't appear to be just that. I swear, it's like you guys are telling me that referencing material that doesn't fall in line with the currently accepted source is wrong, even though I'm only doing what everyone is supposed to do when researching anything.

Look, I'm getting really frustrated at all this, and you guys are too. But look at it this way: When you make something like an essay, or a report, or whatever, do you only look at one source of info on a subject, or do you look at several to get a more in-depth look at the bigger picture?

I have done just that. I used other sources, quantified my observations, got a more in-depth look at the bigger picture. By all accounts, my argument should be counted as solid and well-done. But not here. Here, I have to confer to a narrow-minded outlook that refuses to even acknowledge th idea of putting extra context behind your arguments from sources outside the main media, even though that's what you're supposed to do in every other circumstance.

"However, at the end of the day, I still expect you guys to respect and NOT discredit such additional sources in the future so viciously."

I'll be blunt. No. I still see no reason to consider it or respect in relation to the main source material, therefore I shall not take it into consideration.

Your Guardians of the Galaxy example doesn't apply because that was not something he announced, simply implied/guessed not knowing the long term plan and it has nothing to do with stats or outside material.

Now in GorillaGodzilla's final debate week thread I said you may go on parading that material. I never told you to stop or even never bring it up. I simply said I and others just won't take it into consideration and will likely ignore it for future debates. Hopefully others will agree with your view and take it in consideration, but to me it's meaningless and I see no reason to consider it.

It is at this point that I just stop caring, anymore. It's clear that we will never reach an agreement. This part of the thread is done. I want you guys to know, however, that I won't be taking any of your sh*t when it comes to the validity of my claims in future debates. I'm done.

I flat-out refuse to let my observations be squandered by you guys not taking into consideration the context I put behind my interpretations of the source material via external media. If you guys can find a better way to quantify your side of the argument aside from your own personal interpretations from the main media, you better tell me, because my points are and will remain valid until then because I choose to use additional material to work with that better justifies what I say, and not just my own eyes and ears.

And if you continue saying you won't bother with any of it, and ignore my arguments in future debates where I choose a similar method of analysis, then I will make things difficult. Because it is an insult to my integrity as a fan for you guys to do that to me. It is extremely personal to me, and I am not having any of it. Understand? You can ban me for being difficult, suspend my account, but if that's the price to pay for making sure you all understand you do not insult me like that, so be it.

You've angered me, frustrated me to no end, and I am absolutely done. This is personal, and I will see to it that this doesn't happen again. I didn't want this to become personal, but you guys have forced my hand. I wanted to like being a part of this community, I wanted to just be able to give my points in debates, but continue to shut me down like this, and I might end up as bad as Alx was once upon a time ago.

Nobody wants that, especially me, but you all have to understand that I take criticism to my method of analysis very seriously. It's a very personal matter to me. You can see that I've gone on a huge tangent, got all accuse-y, and might even be making threats. You see what this gets you? You guys might as well lock this thread. It has devolved into this, and you might say I brought this upon myself, but you know what? I regret none of it.

I'm glad to have vented out here. I'm glad that I made it clear this isn't something that just goes away. I'm glad that I got a chance to see the rigidity of the manner in which the moderators dictate the interpretation of content.. I'm glad that I met some people who understand why it isn't as clear-cut as "not in the films? doesn't count". I'm glad that I continued to argue against those who don't get it.

You know what? Just forget about all of that up above. I'm just flat-out done, here. I don't wanna stay here now, and it;s about time I leave. Some people might miss me, many won't after my ranting recently. But you know what? None of that matters to me anymore. I just need to get away from the folks here for a long while.

Who knows? I might come back at a later point, and we'll all forget any of this ever happened. Until then, I bid all of you farewell.

I'm sorry you've taken this so personally, but the fact is we've given viable counterpoints and no one here, including myself, has ever said you can not use that material. If people agree with you that want to debate with it then carry on. I, Durp and some others will not be among those people.

I don't really understand how or why such can be taken so personally. There has never once been an attack on you or said integrity. We have, however, attacked the material and brought up valid points that counter your arguments; we're going to stick with those arguments as reason to not consider the material in question. If you feel offended by that I apologize, but you really shouldn't and I hope you understand why when/if you return.

Wow big developments after i logged off. Sad to see you go but maybe after you cool off you can look back on this thread and see it's just as "insulting" that you who made no more valid points than us expected us to cater the debates and sources around your own rules and laws to how content is looked at which as i pointed out has flaws of its own. Well if you choose not to come back i wish you the best in whatever you pursue.