The Tragedy of Shin Godzilla

@Xeno
Same word describing two different things. I wouldn’t say true evolution, I would say Biological Evolution. I don’t know what to call the other one.

@Gman

I’m not trying to be rude, but out of curiosity, based in the definition of kaiju, would monsters like Yongary be not considered kaiju

I still want to see Shin vs Legendary.

That would be awesome.

SarcasticGoji,
That's an excellent question about Pacific Rim, but also pretty simple to explain. The monsters in Pacific Rim are simply called "kaiju" (or incorrectly "kaijus") in-universe. That is their designation in the fictional world of the film. It does not literally mean they are cinematic kaiju.

Things do get trick with stuff like Yongary, which include a large portion of filmmakers that were a part of Godzilla films. But I think it best to simplify it to Japanese cinema for the sake of confusion.

Some historians, like August Ragone, have insinuated the word be expanded to all Asian cinema, but I'd rather draw the line to Japan alone.

Xenotaris,
Okay, that's wonderful and all, but you're still crying over the misuse of the scientific definition of evolution. Once again, and for maybe the 5th or 6th time, both the Webster and Oxford dictionaries include a secondary definition that is not the scientific definition and is synonymous with "transformation," "metamorphosis," and "modification," none of which limit the definition to having or not having a "perfect state".

So the argument is pointless with that definition which is still perfectly applicable to Pokemon, Shin Godzilla, etc. This isn't me making up rules. It's literally right there in the definition.

This is why I'm perfectly okay with you finding the Samurai/Knight comparison poor--Because I find your argument against the use of the word "evolution" to be equally as insipid since there is (again) a secondary definition for the word that is applicable.

As for this nonsense that the Japanese use the word "kaiju" for Frankenstein and Smaug, that's untrue. Their subtitles use the word "monstura" which is a more literal definition of "monster" and they use the word "kaijin" for the Japanese Frankenstein.

But let's suppose they did use kaiju for these creatures. And? It's their language and their vernacular. There may not be a better word to describe it in their language.

But if we're going to culturally appropriate their word into our language, it needs to have meaning. And if we're just going to label any monster a "kaiju" because we feel like it, then it loses any meaning or reason for being used in the English vernacular. Why call everything a kaiju in English when we have our own word for "giant monsters". It makes no sense and is inaccurate.

But since I'm using the Oxford Dictionary anyway, I decided to look up the word "kaiju". Here's the definition:

n. 1. A giant monster of a type featured in Japanese fantasy and science fiction movies and television programs.

So there you go. "Japanese fantasy and science fiction movies and television programs." Not American. Not western. Not Chinese. Not Korean. Just Japanese.

Here’s a thought, do the definitions differ from language to language?

SarcasticGoji,
Yes, which is partially the point I've been making.

Those last two paragraphs were so chilling they changed my view of the film and I made an account on this site just to express that I love this interpretation. 

mbikkyu

Thanks very much! I wrote this like a few years ago or something, glad you liked it.