The Tragedy of Shin Godzilla

Djdndnejwnwn

I want to start by saying Shin Godzilla is not evil. I know he rampaged through Japan but I do not think shin had any Malicious intent. In the movie it is said that it is possible for Shin to dominate the planet, but it not said that that is what Shin will do.

 Here is an excerpt from who will know that I’ve used to give you an idea of my reasoning.

I wear a void
(As long as breath comes from my mouth)
Not even hope
(I may yet stand the slightest chance)
A downward slope
(A shaft of light is all I need)
Is all I see
(To cease the darkness killing me)

Even though we know that Shin Godzilla is in constant pain and suffering, we learn that shin has hope. I thought this was interesting, and I wondered what would a creature in a constant state of sorrow and suffering have hope for?
And it’s obvious that Shin Godzilla didn’t want to die, from the lyrics. Then I realized, Shin wanted help.

The desire for someone to help them or at least know is expressed in the title, “Who will Know.” What makes this tragic is that Shin Goji couldn’t express himself, and by the end of the movie, was trapped by humans in frozen state of pain, unable to do anything.

This also changed my view of the ending, instead of becoming like humans to dominate, it changed to try to get them to understand. 

So after realizing that humans might be able to help, shin Godzilla evolved to go on land to get their attention. After making landfall, a confused shin crawls through the city wondering why humans were screaming and running away, and unaware of the damage it was making. After mutating, it saw man coming to it and was given hope, but was forced to leave due to the pain. Shin returned, hoping for the help, but was greeted with violence and had to defend itself, and in the end, humans froze Godzilla in pain, and before Shin could mutate to be like them to hopefully communicate.

That is the Tragedy of Shin Godzilla

Djdndnejwnwn

@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

sonictiger

I still want to see Shin vs Legendary.

That would be awesome.

G. H. (Gman)

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.

Djdndnejwnwn

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

G. H. (Gman)

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