Talk:Kaiju

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thisisgwenok.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Daikaiju" in disuse?

The term "daikaiju" is in disuse? That's the first I've ever heard of that.

Seconded. I went and did a bit of an overhaul of this article, removing that bit and correcting others. Still far too short, but that should be remedied in a due time. Thanks for pointing this out.--SB | T 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Daigoro vs Goliath

Ever heard of this Movie? See Toho Kingdom

Image

The photo featured appears to have been taken at night.

68.84.228.122 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We really need a different one. I can't see what's going on in that; it's almost black. --Masamage 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Picture

The pic at the beginning should be changed. It is too dark to see what monsters are supposed to be shown. I'm new and can't really figure out the editting interface. Can someone put up a clearer pic?

Kaiju and Daikaiju translations

I've heard that "Kaiju" translates as "battling monster" and "Daikaiju" as "holy" or "sacred" battling monster. You might want to verify these translations.

"Dai" means big, so "Big Mysterious Creature" or something like that...?--68.227.65.46 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

怪, the "kai" in "kaiju" (the "ju" meaning, correctly, "beast") does not mean "giant", and so to state that "kaiju" means "giant beast" "literally" is completely false. 怪 means "suspicious", "mysterious", or "apparition-al" (though not with the connotation of "immaterial" that would be present in English). Thus, the first part of the second sentence, "The word has been translated and defined in English as 'strange monster'..." carries the actual, LITERAL meaning. The article should be altered to reflect this, excising the incorrect statement, and re-working the correct statement to take its place. --2601:7:7E00:C3:7973:F036:A374:25FF (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Millenium Godzilla.jpg

Image:Millenium Godzilla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Occidental Kaiju

this section simply mentiones King Kong and Cloverfield, however it should note that any number of creatures, especially early monster movies such as the Beast of 20,000 fathoms and others would also constitute, and in fact America's giant monster movies have been cited as inspiring the early Japanese giant monster movies (Toho admits that Godzilla was inspired by the Beast of 20,000 fathoms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.202.0 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaiju Big Battel example

Include world cultural influence, such as Kaiju Big Battel. 99.112.212.108 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Rim: Tales from Year Zero - Kaiju Def

Did anyone else notice that the definition of "kaiju" near the back of the book was taken directly from the way the first paragraph was written at the time. Even now it's only a few words different. LOL 97.124.73.221 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

'Media' List

The list of Japanese films here is woefully incomplete. I've changed the title of this section from 'Media' to 'Selected Media' to indicate this, but I would further propose this list should be removed completely, as more comprehensive lists for the various studios are located elsewhere, and this article would be unwieldy if the list were exhaustive. Walkersam (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin ?

There is no mention of the history/origin of the word nor when it was coined or came into POPULAR use.

The first time I ever heard the term was in the 2013 movie "Pacific Rim" and thought it a creation of the script writers.

In neither "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction" (1993/1995; eds. John Clute & Peter Nicholls) nor "The Encyclopedia of Fantasy" (1997; eds. John Clute & John Grant) does the term have its own entry --- as such, it is NOT defined. What "kaiju" entries there are, the term is ONLY part of the original Japanese movie titles.

So, how about something on the origin/history of the word?

Just a thought. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is in rather poor shape. According to the kaiju entry in Wiktionary, the terms derives from Japanese " 怪獣 " ‎(かいじゅう, kaijū), from [[Middle Chinese] " 怪 " ‎(kwɛ̀j, “strange, fantastic”) +‎ " 獸 " ‎(ʃùw, “beast”). It is related to the Mandarin term " 怪兽 " ‎(guàishòu)).Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

King Kong inclusions

Wasei Kingu Kongu and King Kong Appears in Edo - Despite the names, neither of these involve a giant ape. The first one is about an actor in a costume, the second a non-giant ape.

Meanwhile, some of the American King Kongs should probably be added. ZeroSD (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Pulgasari

Where's Pulgasari? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F1:C180:A63C:8258:F8FF:FEE9:FC6B (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Clifford the Big Red Dog

Just to say I tried, I wanted to make a post here for people who genuinely believe Clifford is a kaiju. I mean genuine belief and not just because it's an old joke recently revitalized by the Game Grumps. That belief has to include more than 'Clifford is a big dog, and that's pretty strange' because that is not sufficient. Kaiju is a Japanese film genre, that is a sub-genre of Tokusatsu. Special effects are the defining factor in Tokusatsu, of which Clifford has none (and being a cartoon does not constitute special effects) and it is not Japanese.

More than likely no one actually believes Clifford is a kaiju and are just making silly jokes, considering how all the edits are by IP-Users or new accounts with only the disruptive edits in their contributions. However, I would hate for someone with a legitimate opinion to not have a chance to express that view so I made this discussion anyway.

I like the Game Grumps, but let's not be disruptive to Wikipedia over jokes they make while also running those jokes into the ground.

DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 21:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Clifford fits all the criteria to be a Kaiju. He's as much of a Kaiju as King Kong and the clay guys mentioned in the same example lines and for the same reasons. The plot of most Clifford stories are even about the unintentional problems his size causes while he just tries to be a dog despite his size. Much of the plots to King Kong, Godzilla, and Gamera occur repeatedly for Clifford. I don't even know where to begin with you bringing in Tokusatsu despite the large number of non-tokusatsu examples already included.. Leave Clifford up and educate yourself more on a subject before you edit a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:155E:6AA:C599:84CB (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Clifford the Big Red Dog is not a kaiju, according to the definition in this article. Clifford is not a giant monster from ancient Japanese legends who attacks major cities and engages the military and other monsters in battle. Not all unusually large animals are kaiju. The Clifford mention in this article appears to have been a reference to a joke by Game Grumps. = Brian Kendig (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Then References to King Kong and 20,000 Fathoms, and even Godzilla should be removed. Godzilla is also not from ancient japanese legends but was inspired by the Rhedosaurus of 20,000 fathoms. You seriously have to complete some mental gymnastics to come up with a Kaiju definition that includes Godzilla's inspirations and Godzilla but not Clifford. You can't even go the 'resembles something from japanese legends' route because Clifford is very clearly a primary colored giant Inu that feeds on emotions for power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoever keeps adding the Kool-Aid man though needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:155E:6AA:C599:84CB, please provide a reliable source which identifies Clifford as a kaiju. - Brian Kendig (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Kool-Aidman was left there for months without source, finally removed today. Most of the page examples listed have no source. And your attempt at applying a definition that excludes Clifford also excludes Godzilla himself. Your demand for a source for this one example is therefore hypocritical. If seeing Clifford and removing the Kool-Aid man upsets you that much maybe you should not be editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You may have a point for King Kong, the Rhedosaurus from 20,000 Fathoms, and Godzilla not being kaiju; if they don't strictly fit the definition given in the article, then please feel free to make a case for removing them (or be bold and remove them and, if someone challenges you, defend your decision here on the Talk page). But I don't see any way in which Clifford fits the definition. You say that Clifford is "very clearly a primary colored giant Inu that feeds on emotions for power" - please provide a citation for that assertion, and avoid WP:OR. Meanwhile I am going to reinstate my removal of the references to Clifford. If you'd like, we can bring this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - Brian Kendig (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution may be neccesary. In the meantime you bring to light an interesting point, the article has a definition for kaiju that does not include Godzilla or his inspirations despite the term being for Godzilla and his inspirations. Nothing given on the page justifies leaving Kool-Aid man on there for months and only being triggered now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The page's definition is specifically NOT folklore. "However, there are no traditional depictions of kaiju or kaiju-like creatures in Japanese folklore but rather the origins of kaiju are found in film.[7]" What even is your argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mediacom Communications customer 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E. When you write a comment, hit "~" (the tilde) four times in a row at its end. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:155E:6AA:C599:84CB, your language is provocative: "educate yourself more on a subject before you edit a page", "Your demand for a source for this one example is therefore hypocritical", "If seeing Clifford and removing the Kool-Aid man upsets you that much maybe you should not be editing this page." Please WP:Assume good faith. Also, the fact that an edit is only being challenged months after it was made is not, itself, a reason to keep the edit. - Brian Kendig (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Failing to challenge the Kool-Aid Man and only caring about the presence of Clifford shows an obvious bias. It's not provocative language, it's a description. While editing this page you left up Kool-Aid Man. Someone else removed it, finally. Why was Kool-Aid Man more of a kaiju to you? 2604:2D80:8C82:7A00:990D:3463:290D:CA6E (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the Kool-Aid Man. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this really the end of the discussion? Someone needs to put this to a vote. It's so obviously an attempt to be silly, and there is no citation. sugarfish (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Clliford is not a kaiju Monster 1954 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Clliford was never a kaiju or Kool aid man they dont fit but Godzilla kong and rhedosauarus do Clliford fit the rules of being a kaiju Big yes but that it Monster 1954 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing character in a section

The fourth Japanese character in the section "Kaiju eiga" is missing. Can it be replaced, please?Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sure! You can make the edit by the way. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and take the initiative :) DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 20:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected

The edit war was getting tiresome, and of course a waste of resources. I've therefore semi-protected the article for ten days.

Propose any change here, discuss it here, get agreement for it here, and only then (if you have a user ID with some edits behind it) make the change to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

El C, you beat me to reprotection of the article. Though since ten days clearly hadn't been long enough for the [insert description here] to lose interest, I was about to s-protect for one month. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, one month it is. El_C 01:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

King Kong

I've never heard of Clifford the whatever, but I have seen King Kong (only the original one). There's some talk above that this is not a kaijū film. (Or perhaps that King Kong, the fictional character, isn't a kaijū'). Is it, or isn't it? Presumably this would depend on one's definition of kaijū, or of kaijū eiga, or whatever. But the notion that the 1933 King Kong is the original kaijū eiga seems common in Japan. As an example:

１９３３年の大恐慌時代のアメリカで生まれた映画『キング・コング』は、怪獣映画をはじめとする、あらゆる娯楽映画のパイオニアとなりました。

(source) -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Larger-than-average ape, probably born the normal way. Freakier than a sasquatch or direwolf. But not on post-Gojira levels of astonishment, amazement or wonder, in my eyes, even before Nintendo turned him into a donkey. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

King Kong is one of the big inspirations for later Kaiju/arguably the first Kaiju movie. Abnormally large animals aren't rare in the genre, and there's a number of later listed examples in the same size class like The Host or the Rhedosaurus from The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. I feel we'd be remiss if we didn't include Kong, even before getting into the other later larger versions, and would even go so far to say it's one of the most influential movies to the genre. ZeroSD (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

King kong should count as the first Kajiu film Monster 1954 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Kaijū outside popular culture?

There's a lengthy section on kaijū "In popular culture".

To me, this implies that the rest of the article is about kaijū outside popular culture. But clearly it isn't. So how about retitling to "Other appearances", "Fleeting appearances", or similar? -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Kaijū

The term kaijū translates literally as "strange beast". It is a science fiction and fantasy giant creature that is often antagonist, protagonist, or force of nature. Godzilla is an example; others include Rodan, Mothra, King Ghidorah, Mechagodzilla, King Kong, Rhedosaurus, Gorgo, Gamera, Gyaos, Daimajin, Gappa, Gort, Gaira and Sanda (from War of the Gargantuas),Clifford The Big Red Dog, and Guilala. The term urutora-kaijū ("ultra-kaiju") is longhand for kaijū in the Ultra Series. 170.94.252.162 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean, you want to add Clifford the Big Red Dog? If so, then no, not until you provide evidence that Clifford the Big Red Dog is standardly referred to (by authoritative sources) as a "kaiju". -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2019

Was Trying to add the game "Ark Survival Evolved" to the Video Games section as it Classifies the Forest,Ice,Desert and King Titans as Kaiju. NonstopChaos (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Kaimono" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kaimono. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man but not Super Sentai

Why is Toei’s Spider-Man listed as a kaiju tv show but not Super Sentai and by extension Power Rangers?

Video game examples

Excuse me, but what is up with some of these video game examples? There are "examples" of games that straight-up don't exist (like "Hero GigaMon Defenders" or "Giant Combat Turtles"), developer names that don't sound like they're real ("Other in selections"?), and just wrong information (it claims that "Colossal Kaiju Combat was Replaced Title game by GigaBash", despite those two games having no connection to each other), not to mention some atrocious grammar (I refer back to "was Replaced Title game") 87.185.123.83 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring going on? Solutions?

Looking over the page history for this article, something that caught my eye was a dispute over certain media in the "Selected Media" section of this article:

• 1 One editor deletes some media from the list, no edit summary
• 2 Another editor reinstates the same content: "Why would you remove all this only to leave a list that features several movies that are not even kaiju and doesn't even feature half of what's listed here."
• 3 First editor again removes of some of the previously deleted content, no edit summary
• 4 Another editor includes the media again: "these are still considered by many to be apart of the genre"
• 5 First editor removes the previously removed content again, and also removes more: "Just because they are allowed on Wikizilla doesn't mean they should be listed as Kaiju films here on Wikipedia"

This seems like an unideal dispute. Is there some criteria that can be established about inclusion/deletion of works in the "Selected Media" section? HenryMP02 ^TALK 09:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@HenryMP02: Sorry for not replying sooner, but the reason I was deleting that list is that there is already a list article featuring giant monster films from all around the world. But since kaiju is solely an Asian film genre I pledge further discussion on this talk page. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2: I see, that clears things up. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Kaiju" in Japanese Folklore

"However, there are no traditional depictions of kaiju or kaiju-like creatures in Japanese folklore; but rather the origins of kaiju are found in film.[6]"

Doesn't Japanese folklore have depictions of enormous catfish trapped underground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namazu), that when they awake their movements cause earthquakes? And what about the Umibozu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umib%C5%8Dzu), a gigantic human form that stands in the ocean and haunts ships? Not to mention various other giants and huge demons in various myths. I'd argue there are some pretty significant Kaiju-like things in Japanese Folklore that have directly influenced the genre.

Araanim (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Bakugan?

I think Bakugan are quite clearly inspired by Kaiju, but I'm not exactly sure if they count. They certainly are giant beasts of strange origin from a Japanese media source. 108.94.140.253 (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Гамера 1965.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gojira 1954 poster 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

28/1-26 changes

@User:Eiga-Kevin2 u recently reworked the ingress of the article back to an earlier stage, with the editing comment: "All this is disputable, changed the lead back as this could lead to a cultural appropriation controversy or something along those lines on here. Take it to the talk page." Can u elaborate? Kaiju has since long been borrowed into the English language as a synonym for "giant movie monster": https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/kaiju which subsequently is the article subject. Although, i checked the japanese corresponding article lol, and its even more vague and ambiguous (template since 2016), using the definition "cryptic monster", with cryptid (cryptic animal) as a bysense. It might need its own QID.

Either way, the current lead breaks WP:REFERS: "Kaiju is a Japanese term that is commonly associated with media involving giant monsters" and doesnt cover the topic directly, that being "giant movie monster", which could also be the title of the article if kaiju is found problematic. The chosen illustration is also problematic, since its just a poster of Godzilla and one that doesnt illustrate the genre very well. The previous illustrations showed various types of kaiju and featured colorfull artwork that defines the genre, void of tons of text. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, observably, scholars and historians, especially outside Japan, largely dispute how broadly the term can be used, for films featuring above-human-size monsters as well as whether giant monster films or any media from outside Japan can be classed as kaiju in general. For giant monster films in Japan, daikaiju (giant strange beast) is more commonly used in their titles. This debate can be compared to that of animated films vs. anime classing outside Japan. Many agree that most should simply be called giant monster films from outside Japan and shouldn't cross-connect. Of note, Pacific Rim only brought it into the mainstream by using it in 2013, and it's not always called a kaiju film.

On images/structure: a poster of Godzilla (1954) is the most appropriate representative example of a kaiju film and also widely indisputably called the first of the genre, and using multiple images is not recommended by MOS. Also per MOS:INTHELEAD: "As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."

The Japanese Wikipedia page also has its own page on the history of the word, and covers kaiju movies separately, noting "Kaiju films are films featuring so-called strange beasts. While they have developed as a distinct genre in Japan, overseas, they are generally classified under the broader category of monster movies (モンスター映画). Monsters encompass a wider range of imaginary creatures than kaiju." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Scope

The article subject isnt about the Japanese term kaiju (cf. Kaizen), but the genre of giant movie monsters, which today is commonly called kaiju. The title of the article uses kaiju in English, not Japanese, and if kaiju is troublesome, then we could move the article to giant movie monster, which is the historical term. Even so, if we compare the Japanese article, we can conclude that their definition is a different topic from this. Ive talked to a Japanese about the subject previously, and while i dont remember what he said about its definition (which probably means it didnt have a concise answer), i do remember that it had essentially nothing to do with the giant monster movie genre. And iirc daikaiju was not a common term either. So in short, the Japanese article should be delinked. jp:怪獣映画 is linked to "creature feature". It's scope is different to ours; google translates the first section as:

Kaiju films are films featuring so-called monsters. While they have developed as a distinct genre in Japan, overseas they are considered a broader category than monster films. Monsters encompass a broader range of imaginary creatures than kaiju (e.g., golems, Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula, the Invisible Man, the Mummy, werewolves, mermen, and aliens). Zombie films are also extremely popular in the United States, spawning numerous spinoffs, but they are a distinct genre from Japanese kaiju films. While the distinction between kaiju, kaibutsu, and kaijin is not always clear, it is important to note the difference between kaiju, kaimono, and kaijin. In the United States, Japanese kaiju films, including Godzilla, are sometimes referred to as "giant monster movies," distinguishing them from the traditional concept of "monster." Regardless, attempts to bring giant or bizarre creatures that do not exist in modern society to the screen have been made since the dawn of cinema.

'Anime', for comparison, is a good example for the discussion, but its not really equivelant. In English, 'anime' either means animation produced in Japan, or the 'Japanese tradition of animation', as it actually differs from the 'Western tradition of animation', and either way corresponds to the first sense. Compared to animation, the 'Western giant movie monster tradition' and 'Japanese giant movie monster tradition' goes hand in hand historically, collectively progressing the genre. There is no ground for calling Godzilla 54 the first in the genre, since there is nothing which really sets it (or 1984, Shin-Godzilla, Minus One, etc) apart from The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) from a genre perspective, as they are all creature features in the disaster film genre, where the disaster is a giant monster wrecking havoc on a city. Godzilla openly borrowed from King Kong and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, later borrowing Kong for indigenous production (Mechani-Kong etc), and vice versa. Japan was a part in producing the The King Kong Show and the US did the Godzilla (1978 TV series), etc. In short, we should not separate Japanese and Western giant movie monsters as with anime from animation, as it would be superfluous and counterproductive. Kaiju in tokusatsu should be covered in that article.

Lead-images

diorama

MOS:INTHELEAD say nothing about not recommending multiple images, and even then they are all purposefully placed in a template akin to an infobox. Otherwise, i also produced this diorama for wikidata: c:File:Giant movie monsters.png.

Also per MOS:INTHELEAD, the current Godzilla poster does not fit the requirements (see bold): "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."

• "technically well-produced": The image quality is low and the motif is obscured by lots of text.
• "representative": Godzilla is only one bodyplan in an otherwise very diverse genre, thus featuring 6 images is better than one.
• "visual association for the topic": The motif doesnt feature godzilla destroying any buildings, and the cannons in the foreground are very obscured, thus it gives poor visual associations for the topic. Since Commons lacks any good Godzilla posters for the purpose, and since Godzilla is mentioned by name in the lead and throughout the article, the poster for Gorgo is a good substitute.

ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 03:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blockhaj The writing is problematic for multiple reasons. Weasel wording and prose need to be direct. it reads more like an academic essay on cultural appropriation, at least in my view. we stick to the definition of it, the history of both release and continued development. Themes can be included within reason. The best example of a genre article done within these parameters is those on the Slasher film (though still a work in progress is still quite good in recent years since some editors have worked on it). Being precise and direct with genre and its history of its popularity and continued evolution is a goal that is obtainable. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack could u elaborate; no joke, this is the first time ive ever heard the term weasel wording. What are u referring to in specific? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 10:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blockhaj Essentially, what I mean is the wording here is not as precise as it needs to be. It really needs to just focus in Kaiju film's, not the giant monster movies, as they are different genres. Slasher film and its structure is a very good example of how to structure an olarticle on genre. Break it down by definition in one section, then its history, analysis/themes, and impact. Things about the English giant monster movies belong in that article and not here. If that had some influence on this genre, a brief mention in a well-written paragraph is all that is needed. My associate, whom you have originally pinged here, is pretty adept in these genre articles, and I would listen to his advice and judgment. This article does have potential, but it is far away from getting to where it needs to be. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack Kaiju films and giant monster movies are the same genre. With "English giant monster movies" i assume u mean Western kaiju movies, and they are not Slasher films and does belong in that article. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 16:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blockhaj You misinterpreted what I meant. Slasher film article was an example on how to structure an article on a film genre. And giant monster movies are a different genre to kauju films. There are plenty of sources that confirm this sentiment and should be treated that way. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I can definitely try to restructure the article according to the Slasher film article. However, the issue here is the claim that kaiju movies are separate from giant monster movies. Could u give a good source for that statement, not simply claiming it, but explaining what kaiju movies are in regards to the giant movie monster genre? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 16:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would have to do some digging, though I am currently busy with other things so that would be a while. This is Eiga-Kevin2's specialty and I have been in contact with him. He was doing some research for this article to assist but he will be gone for a week or so. I would try and use your sandbox to tinker with things there as it is perfect for edits of that nature before transferring them into the main article. As far as the difference it is theme, execution, and culture that separates the two genres from being one and the same. They both look similar at first glance, but a deeper dive finds subtle differences in the above mentioned things. It is fascinating, though not often reported on. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

To the general movie-buff, they are the same, and the sources i have at hand do not separate them, so whatever u might be able to throw at the table would have to be really good and elaborate, but even then, it sounds like u are confusing movie genre with movie tradition. The Japanese kaiju tradition is different to the Western tradition, but there is no difference in genre between The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms and Godzilla (1954) for example. James Rolfe's review of the former is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZvf8DwmDhQ ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't push it. I have been trying to help you, no need so insult or downplay my expertise or knowledge. One such review from Rolfe is hardly confirmation that they are one and the same. This is turning into an unproductive argument, try and heed my advice and tinker around on your sandbox with it. When Eiga-Kevin2 returns, then we shall see where to go. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack WP:Assume good faith, i am not insulting u. I'm already tinkering, but it is not clear which direction to take. Should the lead describe kaiju as a genre per slasher film, or should it describe it as the monster of said genre? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 08:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Blockhaj While I did assume good faith, it did seem a little like you were saying that I did not know enough of the genres. If that is not what you meant I understand. as for starting things, an introductory section going into the definition of the word Kaiju and the genre itself is a good start. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

After digging into reliable sources (including Steven Rawle's Transnational Kaiju: Globalisation, Exploitation and Cult from 2022, Jason Barr's The Kaiju Film from 2016, and various film histories/academic discussions), I think we can close this productively with a compromise that respects both positions:

• Kaiju as primarily Japanese genre/style: Rawle defines kaijū eiga as "a particular kind of giant monster spectacle" most often applied to Japanese films/tokusatsu (suitmation, scale models, city destruction, nuclear allegory, flexible monster roles). He traces its modern origins to Godzilla (1954) and emphasizes its Japanese cultural roots (post-WWII trauma, Shinto views on nature/monsters) while noting it's distinct from generic "monster movies." Barr similarly treats kaiju as rooted in Japanese cinema with specific themes (anxiety over modernity, ecology, power), even when discussing broader applications. This strongly supports keeping the article focused on the Japanese tradition (definition, history, themes, impact) and modeling structure on genre pages like Slasher film.
• Rawle explicitly calls kaijū a transnational genre from the start; born from cross-border exchanges (King Kong, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms as direct influences on Godzilla), shaped by globalization, co-productions, localization, and imitation (Korea, Europe, Hollywood). He stresses that the genre's roots are transnational despite close Japanese associations, and that Western films can be part of its genealogy (e.g., as precursors or appropriations). Barr also allows broader inclusion (e.g., the Cloverfield monster) while centering Japanese examples. This backs acknowledging overlap in the lead/definition (terms sometimes interchangeable; Western films as inspirations) without merging everything.
• Giant monster films in general belong elsewhere: Rawle distinguishes kaijū eiga from the wider "monster movie" or "giant monster" category—kaijū is specifically the Japanese style and lineage, while broader coverage (Western creature features, international B-movies without tokusatsu roots) fits better under "monster film" or "giant monster movie." Barr notes similar boundaries (e.g., excluding pure farce or non-strange, giant, animalistic-looking creatures, i.e., a giant human or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man). This supports moving detailed non-Japanese giant-monster content to those pages, with brief mentions/cross-links in Kaiju (e.g., "For broader giant-monster films, see Monster film").

Refined proposal

• Lead/Definition: Etymology + primary Japanese tokusatsu/giant-monster definition + note on broader English/global usage + short mention of Western precursors as influences (King Kong, Beast) with see-also links.
• History: Japanese development first and foremost; brief precursors paragraph + cross-references.

Rest of article: Keep Japanese-focused per Slasher model.

This is neutral, source-driven, and avoids redundancy. Sources back the Japanese core + acknowledged overlap without forcing separation or merger. If this works (or needs minor tweaks), I can draft the lead or sandbox edits. Thoughts? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I stronly oppose moving "giant movie monsters" to movie monster, since its worthy of its own article to begin with. Western giant movie monsters are unique from example Dracula, The Wolfman, The Mummy, Creature from the Black Lagoon and so on. Secondly, the listed differences between Western and Japanese tradition are not great enough in my opinion to warrant separate articles, especially since Japan will be the main subject for large parts of the article either way, since they have lead the genre from the 1960s onward to modern times. My vision for this article is to be an overarching article, since that is more practical at the moment. Compare it to Police procedural.

There is also the historical and popcultural point of view to consider. Historically, Japanese kaiju movies has simply been viewed as part of the giant monster genre. As far as i am aware, the term "kaiju" for Japanese giant monster movies was not coined in Western countries until the 1990s (although it would be interesting to know more exactly). Even then, in modern popculture, the broad generalization of kaiju being synonymous with giant movie monster persists, and has to be accounted for per WP:POLA. The average person and movie buff searching for kaiju will expect Godzilla, King Kong, Universal's Monsterverse, Pacific Rim, as well as memes like The Giant Claw.

Thus I propose the reverse of the above, if not simply for practical reasons:

• Scope: broad definition as primary, with Japanese tokusatsu/giant-monster definition as secondary academic jargon with a dedicated segment.
• History: should be chronological since the western tradition dies off in the 1960s as the Japanese tradition rises, not to mention the shared-modern history post Godzilla 98.

The aforementioned books also seem to tackle the subject in a similar manner: Barr's description on Amazon reads: The Kaiju film genre has a number of themes that go well beyond the "big monsters stomping on cities" motif. Since the seminal King Kong 1933) and the archetypal Godzilla (1954).. Funnily, the cover also features the British Gorgo. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 09:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

the book description is hardly confirmation. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Godzilla poster

@Armegon The current Godzilla poster does not fit MOS:INTHELEAD (see bold): "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page."

• "technically well-produced": The image quality is low and the motif is obscured by lots of text.
• "representative": Godzilla is only one bodyplan in an otherwise very diverse genre, thus featuring 6 images is better than one.
• "visual association for the topic": The motif doesnt feature godzilla destroying any buildings, and the cannons in the foreground are very obscured, thus it gives poor visual associations for the topic.

ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 01:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem with MOS:INTHELEAD is that it doesn't provide examples as to what qualifies as "technically well-produced, representative, and visual association for the topic" -- that's something you would have to fill in the blanks yourself and your interpretation is prone to be subjective and potentially disagreed by some. The current poster is neutral. Maybe you personally don't like the current poster, but it is official and acceptable by Wiki standards. Personally, the poster looks fine to me, and apparently fine to others as well since the poster's been on the article for 17 years.

As I previously said, there was no consensus to remove the 1954 poster; no one simply challenged you on it but that's not the same as consensus. Please don't take offense but your image suggestion (aka a collage) is excessive, not to mention it has potential to invoke edit warring over what qualifies as a kaiju film or not; or "why is my favorite poster not included here?"; or how we decide what poster should be included in that collage. So, your image suggestion requires consensus. Also note, many film genre articles use one singular image (typically a poster) rather than a collage -- check Slasher film, Comedy film, Action film, War film, etc.

As for the other images you added, like I said in my many edit summaries: it's overkill, excessive, and a violation of MOS:IMAGEREL, WP:DUE, and today I just discovered that it also violates WP:GALLERY. I left a couple behind because they do fulfill image relevancy by providing additional informative commentary. But the others are just obtrusive decorations.

We could skip discussion, since the February discussion went nowhere, and jump to a request for consensus, if you'd like? Armegon (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have given reasonable examples above as to why the Japanese poster is a bad illustration per MOS:INTHELEAD, even if it doesnt provide examples. It's not about interpretating MOS:INTHELEAD, since they are valid complaints either way. A movie poster doesn't automatically make for a good illustration. I also dont see how it would be neutral, since it focuses on a singular kaiju? Compare this to if World War II had a singular image in the lead. I actually did a composite illustration for a case like that: c:File:Giant movie monsters.png. The argument that it has been there for 17 years is not good either. We update Wikipedia, not fossilize it. I also oppose it as a singular illustration for its bodyplan, since it doesnt illustrate the diversity of kaiju, instead pulling into the stereotype that kaijus are large lizard monsters.

The edit-warring argument is more reasonable, but limiting the lead to a singular illustration should be plan B, not a preemptive solution. A singular illustration in the lead, considering what is available, cant do the subject justice. Few posters illustrates the genre. The only poster i know of which features a giant monster trampling a city while being bombarded by the army, is Gorgo (film) (c:File:Gorgo 1961 Film Poster.jpg). However, that is an obscure (honestly garbage) movie, and thus pales against the argument of using recognizable monsters. Its also a giant lizard monster, as explained above.

Followup as u like. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 10:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Your original argument might be reasonable and valid, but that alone is not consensus or enough grounds to remove the current image; no one challenging you on those points is not the same as agreement, people just ignored it. A movie poster probably "doesn't automatically make for a good illustration"... but MOS:FILMNFI does highly recommend it for film articles, and by extension film genre articles. I don't understand why you brought up World War II, the standards and guidelines for articles like that are severely different to how film-based articles should be done; you'll be hard pressed to convince others with apples and oranges.

"We update Wikipedia, not fossilize it." I was once dragged into a similar issue that shouldn't have gone too far, and someone in that thread said something truly wise, "A good infobox image can be permament. There is no "schedule" for rotating out infobox images, or any images, or anything else". As I said, the current poster is neutral. It's been there for 17 years and there is no time limit imposed.

It may not illustrate the diversity of kaiju but it certainly does illustrate the pioneer of the sub-genre. Fans keep forgetting that the kaiju genre is a sub-genre of monster films; kaiju films are monster films from Japan -- with the exceptions of co-productions like Yongary or Monster Zero. Godzilla (1954 film) may not have been the first kaiju film, but it was the one that revolutionized and pioneered everything we now associate with that genre. People may not have seen Godzilla movies, but they knew his name and what he looks like. That kind of cultural relevance carries weight and power, and it's traced back to the 1954 film. It is quite literally the one that started it all, and because of that I'd say the current image of Godzilla '54 is very appropriate.

What qualifies as kaiju "diversity" is also prone to subjectivity. Again, you potentially have differing opinions warring over what qualifies to them as the quintessential example(s) of what is or isn't synonymous with the genre. The current image prevents all that headache because, like it or not, it is neutral. But if that one poster is the problem to you, we can always replace it with the one that the 1954 article already uses. That is the more commonly used poster, after all. Armegon (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"We update Wikipedia, not fossilize it" does not mean we should change images on a regular basis, it means that something that was fine in the past doesnt necesarily make it that now (maybe i should have written "we keep Wikipedia up to date"). A good infobox image can definitely be permament, but as explained, the current one is not. Even for Godzilla posters it is bad.

Describing Godzilla as the pioneer is also subjective. It popularized the genre in Japan for sure, but the real undisputed pioneer is King Kong (really The Lost World), and the canonical direct inspiration for Godzilla 1954 is the The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. Godzilla really only holds the title of being the most famous and widespread example. Kaiju movies are not monster films from Japan. That view is largely subjective but also fairly baseless when u look at history. Japanese kaiju movies has their own style for sure, but that goes for every genre.

Anyway, we should request consensus, as u previously suggested. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

"Describing Godzilla as the pioneer is also subjective; the real undisputed pioneer is King Kong" -- this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid: different interpretations that may beget edit warring. Your interpretation is that Kong '33 is the first kaiju film, but the term "kaiju" has never been associated with that film until the 2010s, maybe. Only the Toho-produced Kong films have been called kaiju films because they were Japanese productions.

Before I go so far to request for comment, I think it's best we try one last attempt to reach a consensus here.

@Paleface Jack:, @Eiga-Kevin2: -- you guys were part of that February discussion. Care to lend your two cents on whether or not to update the lead's image with Blockhaj's suggestion, or keep the image as it is? I say keep it as it is per neutrality and because the 1954 Godzilla film pioneered and revolutionized the kaiju sub-genre; Kong '33 is not a kaiju film (not a Japanese production) but it did pioneer the Monster movie genre.

Blockhaj also mentioned that the current image is not a good one, and I also suggested that, if that's truly the issue, we could replace it with the one from the 1954 film article. Armegon (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armegon I think that is a good idea to use a better quality image. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Also in agreement over using the one image. And I feel the article itself still needs a full rewrite if something can be agreed upon over it. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armegon we are not avoiding subjectivity by featuring one disputed image in the lead. That is one of the pros of the gallery, as it allows many POWs over one.

As for Kong, he has been called kaiju since the term was borrowed into English starting in the 90s (give or take), even if it only started becomming common post 2000. A simple google search yields results like:

• kaijuhistorian.wordpress.com "King Kong, released in 1933, can be considered the first Kaiju film in existence."
• miscrave.com: "Peter Jackson’s King Kong 2005 is the definitive Kaiju Gorilla"

Before kaiju, the common English term was "giant movie monster" and thereof (which some still prefer). It is important to understand that kaiju has been borrowed into English for quite some time as a synonym for "giant movie monster", which is not strictly equivelant to the Japanese term kaiju, for which English lacks a proper analog (the Japanese article suggest "monstrous beast", which isnt too bad). I only fairly recently found out that the Japanese term kaiju is analog to Swedish "vidunder", which helps in understanding it.

Monster movies were pioneered way earlier than King Kong, already in the infancy of moving pictures, for example Nosferatu, Golem, and many lost productions. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 05:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but the way you used the galleries was gratuitous and, once again, in violation of the guidelines I cited. I'm not opposed to a gallery as long as it's done in a critically informative and properly encyclopedic manner. Both of those sources you shared prove my point exactly: Kong '33, and to an extent 2005's remake, was not associated with the term "kaiju" until much later. To say it always was is insincere. Again, it wasn't a Japanese production.

We must separate the unofficial loan-word version from the official word. This is how we achieve neutrality. Especially since we're now crossing the barrier of monster films (King Kong, Godzilla) to more broader monsters like Nosferatu and and the Golem and Swedish words for "monster". We gotta get back on track. Armegon (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armegon u appear to have the incorrect definition of kaiju and "monster movie". Our article on monster movies literally goes as stated:

"The first feature-length films to include what are regarded as monsters were often classed as horror or science fiction films. The lost 1915 German silent film The Golem, directed by Paul Wegener, is one of the earliest examples of film to include a creature. ... The German Expressionist Nosferatu in 1922 ... followed tradition.

We must separate the unofficial loan-word version from the official word. There is no "unofficial loan-word" or "official word" regarding kaiju. In English, kaiju is just a modern term for giant (movie) monster, the scope of this article. The original Japanese term goes beyond this scope, as its not a strict movie term, and this article does not cover the Japanese term (cf. Yokai), it covers giant movie monsters. Even in movies, kaiju does not soly refer to Japanese production, and this has been broight up before. The Japanese have called King Kong, Rhedosaurus, Ymir and many other Western monsters as "kaiju" since the 1950s, as that is what they are (kaiju = "big monstrous beast"). If u look up the people behind Godzilla 54, they clearly state that they took inspiration from King Kong and The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, with no discernible distinction. Likewise, the West have called Japanese monsters like Godzilla and beyond "giant movie monster" for the same amount of time. There is a reason we got Godzilla vs King Kong already in 1962. Ie, King Kong being called "kaiju" today is not a "new association", he's just being described with a new popculture word for "giant movie monster". Kaiju is 3x shorter than "giant movie monster" and thus a much more practical term.

Making a distinction for Japanese kaiju apart from Western kaiju akin to anime vs western animation is counterproductive for a variety of reasons. Such could be done once the current article is large enough to warrant sub-articles. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 14:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn’t cite anything from the Monster movie article as the definitive word, considering that article suffers from the same verification issues and fancruft that the kaiju article also suffers from. What you cited was added without tagging a reliable source to back it up. Likewise, YOU added this without providing a reliable source either. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but no one is shepherding that article, so anyone can put whatever they want without citing sources and not have it challenged. Both articles are too biased, but that’s a topic and discussion for another day.

You’re both right and wrong. Yes, to the Japanese Kong ‘33 is a kaiju film, but in the broader sense; No, because Merian Cooper, RKO, and company never produced the film with the mindset, “we’re making a kaiju film!” That mindset is more apt to today’s Western filmmakers. No, because it doesn’t fit culturally. Again, kaiju is a sub-genre of Japanese styled monster films produced by the Japanese.

The best analogy to use here is anime (a Japanese style sub-genre of animation) vs. Western animation. You won’t find any anime articles placing Disney, Pixar, and Illumination films under that anime umbrella. Kaiju (a Japanese style sub-genre of monster films) vs. Western monster films should be treated in that same spirit. Armegon (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armegon My addition to the ingress in monster movie removed "giant monster film" as a synonym and added discerning details to be in line with the article body. I dont need a source to remove something which wasnt sourced to being with.

King Kong is from 1933, its so early it made the stage. Even so, they definitely set out to make a kaiju film for what it was at the time. They set out to remake The Lost World (itself a proto-kaiju movie in its 3rd act) but in sound, while also building on the concept, thus the mountain platau became an island, the monster a giant mythological gorilla that acts as a foe to the cast while being humanoid enough to where the public can sympathize with it.

"That mindset is more apt to today’s Western filmmakers." This is enwp, western thought is our baseline, even if this quote is disputable.

"Again, kaiju is a sub-genre of Japanese styled monster films produced by the Japanese." This is easily disputable and requires a source. The Japanese title of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms has kaiju in the title: 原子怪獣現わる ("The Atomic Kaiju Appears"). Even the Japanese article has the following chronology:

• March 2, 1933 - The American monster movie "King Kong" premieres. It was released in Japan on September 14 of the same year.
• June 13, 1953 - The American kaiju movie ("kaijū eiga") "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" is released in the United States. It was released in Japan on December 22, 1954, under the Japanese title "Genshi Kaiju Arawaru" (The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms). The main dinosaur-like monster, "Rhedosaurus," was translated as "Kaiju" in the film.
• November 3, 1954 - Japan's first kaiju movie premieres / Japanese kaijū movie "Godzilla" premieres. It established the concept of "Kaiju" as characters in Japan.

Back to the anime argument. The issue here is that anime is way more defined and has way more material to build on. Kaiju/giant monster movies is a big mess in comparison, and we need a super-article for both western and japanese kaiju production, just like we have animation above anime (where western animation is split over multiple articles, like rubber hose animation). Giving japanese kaiju production its own sub-article is a future project but there is no practical reason to do it at this stage. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 18:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

All of that is beside the point now. The consensus, so far, is to update the image with this one. If you disagree then you can probably request more opinions on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Armegon (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm a tad bit confused. For clarity's sake, do we agree to use Blockhaj's suggestion or a higher quality variant of the 1954 poster? Armegon (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

54' poster Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Do we settle on this one since it already exists, is public domain in Japan, and is an HD upload? Or upload a variant to shake things up? Armegon (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I say the already existing one that's featured on the 1954 page already. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: opinions aside, is this a suitable alternative for you? One of your grievances was that the current image for the ‘54 poster is not a good one. The suggested one is most widely used variant.

What say you, @Paleface Jack:? Armegon (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

When applicable, a better quality image should always be used. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, so there’s no misinterpretation, you’re in favor of using the ‘54 poster used in the ‘54 film article? Armegon (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Armegon I am, considering the film is the flagship of the genre, it would be applicable. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

YES!! That's exactly what I said earlier in this thread! Armegon (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

"Howl from Beyond the Fog" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Howl from Beyond the Fog has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 22 § Howl from Beyond the Fog until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"List of kaiju" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of kaiju has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 22 § list of kaiju (creatures) until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 18:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"Mecha kaiju" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mecha kaiju has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 18 § Mecha kaiju until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2026 (UTC)