Hi, I’m a new member of Wikizilla, I’ve been a longtime Godzilla fan and I also like to study the English dubs to each Godzilla film (that mainly concern having international\export dubbed versions). It appears that you probably know quite a bit about this subject matter, so I wanted to ask you a question concerning the original Ghidorah 1964 film. I’ve been looking for an uncut English dubbed version, were the origin of the story remains on Venus where Princess Salno came from, her name unchanged, no re-arranged scenes and the music score being retained. I believe a few years ago a couple of guys found some Turkish advertising material containing this information, as well as using possibly a different title card name Monster of Monsters: Ghidorah. They made it sound like it was a possibility and they said it wasn’t known if it existed, but found these advertising materials that state it does.
User talk:The H-Man
From Wikizilla, the kaiju encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to searchI just bought a 1989 Terror of Mechagodzilla VHS, and I’m a little confused. I was expecting either the Red and White freeze frame title or the Yellow explosion title. Shockingly, it contains neither. The Mechagodzilla freeze frame is blank, and so is the explosion. Is this normal for a Paramount VHS tape?
H-Man,
IIRC, you said in one of my notices pages "Godzilla (Dark Horse edits)" that Gappa was the UK title for this film (according to the BBFC record that you posted there) and that Gappa the Triphibian Monster was only used in the theatrical release posters. This was 14 days ago, according to the notice. I took your advice and changed it, then you undid it. What gives? I'm confused here.
Yes, that was an unfortunate casualty, because it's far easier to undo your edits in all (which I explained here) than manually change just the mistakes.
Do you want me to put the UK title back, or do you want to do it?
I took care of it, thanks.
Hey, would you be at all interested in joining our private Discord? If so, I can shoot you a link. Thanks.
can i join the discord?
If you’ve ever felt like joining, now would be the time: Topic:Vnqfcosxj0wug14z
Thank you for your consideration! I only have very little experience with Discord, and while I'd like to join, I'm not sure I'd get the most out of it (simply because it's all very foreign to me). That said, I do have the app and an account that I use to talk to some friends, but if my membership in the Wikizilla Discord would prevent a more active member from joining then I would suggest you guys offer that spot to them instead. But again, thank you.
Discord servers can hold thousands of people, so you don't have to worry at all about taking up a spot.
Nope, no spots are reserved and we’re actively looking for new faces. There are plenty of other cool people there like SpaceHunterM and Monster Island Buddies, so we’d love to have someone of your expertise around. Even if you don’t use it often, it’s an easy means of communication to talk about ways to improve the site, etc. So maybe we’ll see you there? :D
Pretty sure I joined; like I said, Discord is mostly a foreign concept to me, lol. Thanks for opening up the invites and the suggestion to join.
Sure thing! Yup, I see you on the user list. Happy to have ya
Except - there seem to be two accounts with the name "Hman." Did you accidentally join with two?
Oops, that's a definite possibility. Like I said, not really sure what I'm doing with it. From my end it looks like there are two HMans (H-Men?) as well, although I'm not sure how that happened.
is there a server, if so, may I join?
I found 2 unknown DAM tapes, but I’m not sure where to put this info. Can you tell me which versions of the film they are?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/144104279481?hash=item218d48cdb9:g:xcUAAOSw33Jg5NIj
Hollywood House Video was/is an Australian company. The other has no company information, which pretty much guarantees it's a bootleg.
Is the first one the AIP dub and is it official? It’s not on Toho Kingdoms VHS collection!
Not sure on either count. But regarding legitimacy, it's suspicious that Toho's name isn't anywhere on the back.
I fell like i have seen that before...
Is it theAIP dub?
I haven't seen the tape myself and I can't find any significant info about it online, but I'd guess the Hollywood Home Theater tape is the AIP version. Siren Visual (also Australian) later released DAM on DVD and their transfer was from a censored 16mm print of the AIP version.
Was the Siren DVD also 80 minutes?
It's 82:26 (PAL; 85:33 at film speed), so it's possibly the same transfer.
I dunno, I don’t think anyone on Wikizilla has any of the Siren Visual DVD’s. I know I don’t!
I found another mystery tape: https://www.ebay.com/itm/174708708188?hash=item28ad73535c:g:rtQAAOSwUMxgX0ui
The only hit for that company on Google effectively calls it a bootlegger.
I just found something interesting: https://www.ebay.com/itm/174557646908?hash=item28a472503c:g:HZoAAOSwCp1f1iwm
Ah, okay.
https://wikizilla.org/w/images/f/f4/Godzilla_vs._Megalon_American_Title_Card.png
I’m sorry, I do not mean to bother the Wikizilla staff, but I have one question: where did this widescreen Godzilla vs. Megalon US title come from? I’ve checked everywhere, but can’t find a widescreen copy of the US version!
Well, first of all, I'm not staff.
Almost none of the video transfers of the U.S. Godzilla vs. Megalon unsqueeze the opening titles -- the one exception that I know of is the Alpha Video transfer, released on VHS and DVD. https://www.tohokingdom.com/dvd/images/gmegalon_alpha/gm_a2.htm
So, this is a screenshot from the 1997 Anchor Bay VHS, then stretched back to its original dimensions in Photoshop, using the unsqueezed Alpha Video transfer as a guide.
Well, I don’t mean to bother anyone on WIlizilla, staff or not. So it’s a reconstruction?
Not a reconstruction, i.e. nothing's been recreated. It's a frame from the film restored as closely to its original dimensions as possible.
huh.
This post was hidden by UltraGoji (history)
Due to the lack of information regarding the English sales catalogue online, I am asking you for some details since you claim to own it.
I don't own it, but I do have the digital files Astounding just linked. Toho Films 1954, '55, and 60-63 are all digitized and online. I also have select pages of a few late '60s volumes. I haven't been able to access any of these since my desktop PC crashed last month.
Thanks.
There are a lot of misidentified "posters" in the galleries on site -- I've been trying to correct them where possible, but I think a general thread on the subject is warranted.
First of all, there is a distinct difference between "movie posters" and other "advertisements." Posters are advertisements, but not all advertisements are movie posters. Sometimes they can be easily confused, especially online, where the original physical dimensions of the ads are obscured. (Movie posters, regardless of country of origin, come in a variety of standard sizes. If you were to look at an original physical movie poster and a newspaper clipping from the same film, you would be able to easily ID which is which based on size alone. Again, this distinction isn't so obvious when both have been scanned and shared online in the same approximate size.)
This is a classic example of an American movie poster. Some easy ways to identify it as such, listed from most general to most specific:
- The printed language is English; it should be obvious that if it was another language, it wouldn't likely be an American poster.
- At the bottom left, "Printed in U.S.A." -- this only indicates that the poster was printed in the U.S., so it doesn't necessarily mean it was intended for use in the U.S.
- Credits for an Americanized version of a film don't necessarily mean the poster is for an American release. (So, for example, a Godzilla, King of the Monsters! poster crediting Raymond Burr wouldn't necessarily be American, since that version was seen in England, Australia, and New Zealand.) However, a great indication that this is an American poster is the text "A DCA Release." We know that DCA released the film in the U.S. but not in England (for example). Admittedly, this usually requires some further reading and research, but if you know the companies that released these films in the U.S. (and also in the UK), it's a
- At the bottom right is a numerical code, 57 \ 510. That's what's called a "National Screen Service (NSS) number." This is a terrific read on the National Screen Service, but in summary, the NSS printed and distributed most movie posters for American use from 1940 to the 1980s. Each film was given a code number for business purposes, thus the NSS number. In short, if a poster has "National Screen Service" and one of those numbers, it is an American poster.
On the other hand, despite being classified as such in the Rodan gallery, this is not a movie poster.
- It's not in color. Technically speaking, the original image could have been scanned and saved in b&w, but generally speaking, a black and white advertisement isn't going to be a movie poster. Use your best judgement.
- Text tells us that the film "starts today! in 26 So. California theaters!" Most NSS posters were printed for nationwide use, so text of this sort is unusual in movie posters. The more specific theater locations and such printed at the bottom are another dead giveaway that this is not a poster. It's a newspaper clipping.
The NSS also distributed pressbooks, which were intended for theater owners to clip ready-made advertisements from for use in local papers (theater owners or the newspaper staff would then add the pertinent local information before the ads were printed). The full ad art here is what's typically referred to as an "ad mat." Although the art is usually derived from that used in the posters, these are not posters.
Some excellent resources:
Heritage Auctions' Movie Poster Size Guide
Auction History - eMoviePoster.com - Really good resource for identifying film-specific posters. If you find a poster online that you can't identify, I'd suggest searching for that film here. Odds are one has sold, and the archived listing will provide you the country of origin (not always correct, especially for posters of foreign origin) and its original physical dimensions, along with other important information.
One specific example that sort of defies typical classification: this export The X from Outer Space poster, which @Kaiju No. 14 uploaded to the gallery as an "American poster".
Toho, Shochiku, Daiei, and virtually all of the major Japanese studios also prepared English advertisements for certain films. It's usually assumed the purpose of this was to give foreign distributors advertising art (or even the posters themselves) to use for their release. American companies, however, almost always created their own art and posters.
A clue that a poster is an export/international poster is in the credits: in this case, for example, no American personnel or companies are credited anywhere. (And there isn't an NSS code.) The Shochiku wordmark and logo is another clue -- although American posters would usually credit the Japanese studio, you generally never saw the Japanese company logos.
We also know this isn't an American poster because this film was picked up by AIP and went straight to TV. Posters historically were used by theaters, so a film which bypassed American theaters 99% of the time won't have an "American poster."
What makes this difficult to classify, however, is the "Recommended for Adult Entertainment" snipe. Snipes are described here as "a piece of paper stuck on to a movie poster after it was originally printed." I don't know the origin of this specific snipe, but note that you can find identical snipes on various movie posters in this Google Image search. I think it might have been a regional Canadian thing; Canada's current rating system only dates to the late '90s, but films released in Canada had to have been censored and passed by some entity.
Unfortunately, given the lack of information online, it's hard to say why an export poster of The X from Outer Space had this snipe slapped on it. However, despite the snipe, it's definitely an export/international poster (one without the snipe sold in January), so I think that's the best way to classify it.
It was in english soo i assumed that.
Right, I get that (one reason why I made it a point to bring that up in this topic). And I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you -- I just thought that poster was an excellent example of how difficult it can be to precisely identify or classify certain posters.
Hello. Firstly, thank you again for all of the hard work you've been putting in to upgrading our gallery screenshots. It's something that's been long overdue and we greatly appreciate your efforts.
I noticed you were working on Ebirah, and I figured I'd ask if you'd be so kind as to take a screenshot of the single MosuGoji scene from that movie, as I don't have a Blu-ray rip on hand. It happens at around the 56:08 mark, when Ebirah drags Godzilla under the water. You can tell by the dorsal plate pattern and triangular fingers that it's not the Daisenso. Thanks a bunch!
No problem!
It's a bit of a difficult scene to grab a single frame from but I think this works. https://i.postimg.cc/yVk7d4BD/mosu66-2.png
Thank you very much! That'll do nicely
Thanks, too, for the heads-up. It looks like there are a few more shots of MosuGoji (in its hybridized Jiras form?) in Ebirah.
This seems to be another shot of it, when Godzilla is again dragged underwater in the final battle; unfortunately we don't get a look at the dorsal fins, but the long, slender fingers (seen better in this behind the scenes pic) are consistent with MosuGoji's. The film's two shots of Godzilla being pulled under were probably photographed together.
And there's this unflattering shot of Godzilla, also from the final battle (preceding the shot I just linked above). While the head doesn't belong to the original MosuGoji, the one visible dorsal fin definitely does, although that's not apparent in this behind the scenes shot.
This seems to be another shot of it, when Godzilla is again dragged underwater in the final battle; unfortunately we don't get a look at the dorsal fins, but the long, slender fingers (seen better in this behind the scenes pic) are consistent with MosuGoji's.
I definitely agree the screenshot is of MosuGoji, given the shape of the finger claws, though it seems like a more Daisenso-esque head was attached. As for the production shot, it's hard to tell, but the fingers almost look a little different. Then again, the feet resemble MosuGoji's.
While the head doesn't belong to the original MosuGoji, the one visible dorsal fin definitely does
Yep, that's a dead ringer for a MosuGoji plate. According to The Pictorial Book of Godzilla, these three images also depict the MosuGoji. The caption on the last one claims the spot on top of his head is from where Gomess' horn was removed. I can't see the plates well enough to confirm or deny, but there you go.
Addendum: upon further inspection, this head really does resemble Jirahs. I have to wonder about the timeline of these suits being modified and filmed.
I've wondered about that, too. I'm kinda pressed for time this afternoon but fortunately I have some pics from a recent Facebook discussion about this that I can dump here to augment this summary.
I'm very skeptical about the whole "NankaiGoji" / "a new head was built for part of Ebirah". To me, it just looks like the same Monster Zero costume in various stages of wear, tear, and repair. My hypothesis is that the Ultraman episode (broadcast September 18) would have been completed before Ebirah started filming (Cyberkids had a draft dated August 24), and that the Daisenso head was stitched back onto its original body in time to shoot Ebirah. (I'm not sure yet what to make of these screenshots and bts pictures of MosuGoji or, possibly, the hybridized "Jiras" costume in Ebirah.)
In brief, my idea is that they didn't build a new head, they just gave Godzilla a "face lift" towards the end of production on Ebirah. I think this was necessary because the materials in the face visibly sagged and shifted to the point that the eyes were almost entirely obscured when photographed at some angles. All they apparently did was pull the brows up and back to re-expose the eyes.
I really should have expanded this to include other screenshots from early in the production of Ebirah, but I have to make do with what I've got online. Nevertheless, I think it illustrates my point well enough. I also have this left profile comparison. IMO, the "NankaiGoji's" face shows too many similarities to the original DaisensoGoji's look for it to be a brand new head. For example, compare the definition in the "musculature" of Godzilla's left cheek. And the way the right cheek hangs over the mouth is consistent even back to its original appearance in Monster Zero. The lower lip appears unchanged, too.
Only circumstantial evidence, of course, but I think it's more likely than not.
Yeah, I don't have reason to believe it's a new head either. I doubt there is any evidence to back that claim up on our page, and I assume it's just a relic from years past when things were checked less. A lot of the suit information needs evaluation, I think.
On the topic of the timeline, I just discovered The Pictorial Book that I mentioned actually gives some dates in regards to shooting.
- The MosuGoji was created for Mothra vs. Godzilla around January of 1964. Filming on Ghidorah lasted from August to September of that year. The suit was kept on the rooftop of a department store as an attraction thereafter.
- The MosuGoji was eventually loaned to Tsuburaya who converted it into Gomess and filmed him between February and March of '65.
- The DaisensoGoji was created and filmed for Invasion of Astro-Monster from September to October of 1965.
- In May of 1966, the MosuGoji (which had since been deconverted from Gomess) had its head cut off and replaced by the DaisensoGoji's for display at the Ueno Akafudado department store. That's where these images are from.
- The hybridized Godzilla suit was then sent off to Tsuburaya, who converted it into Jirahs and filmed him in August of '66.
- Toho then got it back and reattached its head to the DaisensoGoji's body for Ebirah, which filmed from September to October of '66.
So there you go. The timeline on Daisenso is indeed IoAM → Ultraman → EHotD. That would leave us with an in-tact Daisenso and a headless Mosu by the time Ebirah was filming. So did they film the Mosu first with the Daisenso's head still attached, then reattached it to the Daisenso body? Did they dig up the original Mosu head and reattach it to its body (the passage I brought up in my last post mentions something about Gomess' horn being removed, after all)? Or did the Mosu get an entirely new head for those water scenes? Those are the questions I unfortunately don't have answers to (at least for the moment).
It's good to have that timeline confirmed, thanks for looking into that!
Based on the behind the scenes pictures and scant screenshots from the film, it looks like they shot some of the water tank footage with the hybrid costume. This would appear to be the Daisenso head -- it has the same basic facial proportions as in this Ebirah screenshot.
It's much harder to tell which head is pictured here, but IMO, its proportions are more like that of the broad-faced Daisenso than Mosu.(Somewhat similar angle from Ghidrah.) I wonder if the spot on its head actually has anything to do with the white spot in this production photo of Jiras.
Incidentally, August Ragone has another, low-quality picture of the Mosu/Daisenso hybrid here, valuable because it shows the pre-Jiras form of the costume(s) from the opposite side (this just looks like it's been flipped).
But the head seen here and here continues to confuse me. Neither its eyes nor nose match either Mosu or DaisensoGoji (in either 1965 or 1966). However, as you mentioned before, it's very similar to Jiras, which we know to be a redress of the classic DaisensoGoji head. I don't have an HD version of the Ultraman episode, otherwise I'd already be hunting for screenshots showing Jiras' right profile.
Yeah, it‘s very possible the book is simply wrong about the spot on his head having anything to do with Gomess. The spot on Jirahs’ head is a good catch.
My working theory is that the deconverted Jirahs was filmed first, before they reconstructed the DaisensoGoji. The head would’ve likely been repaired/remodeled which is why it does not resemble the ‘66 suit - the attraction version seen in the Ragone image is pretty close to this one, methinks. Jirahs and this water Godzilla also have very similar orange eyes (see here).
I don't like to speculate too much, especially without much evidence, but I'm starting to wonder if there was a second "stunt" head attached to the Jirass costume for water stunt scenes. Here are four screenshots -- forgive the abysmal quality of the BCI DVDs (the only copy I own) -- the way the lower jaw is hinged looks different than it does on the real DaisensoGoji. Perhaps it's just the angle the suit was shot at here, but it sure looks different to me. For comparison, here's another lousy screenshot of Jiras, this time with the authentic DaisensoGoji head attached, from approx. the same angle.
Admittedly, Ultraman & co. aren't exactly my forte. Maybe some Ultra Series reference works clarify this?
Anyway, if that's a different head, it could explain the strange face of the water tank MosuGoji in Ebirah. Maybe TPC shot the water scenes last, and the costume was returned with the alternate head still attached. On the other hand, this still looks like the real DaisensoGoji to me, so maybe this shot was erroneously lumped in with the shots of the Mosu/"Jiras" Goji?
More food for thought, anyway.
Was flipping through a scan of Godzilla 1954-1999 Super Complete Works and found two more production photos from the underwater Ebirah shots: here and here. The first one is essentially a fuller view of this shot from the movie and gives a good look at both the head and the spines. Definitely a MosuGoji spine, but with a Daisenso-esque head.
Good finds! Too bad the text doesn't provide more details about the suit itself. I agree, that's certainly the Mosu body but I think the head is still frustratingly obscure. I think we're probably looking at this ugly thing, but I can't be sure from the new picture (or the screenshot). MosuGoji had a long neck but the one on the suit in those pictures looks freakishly long... it doesn't seem like that's the original neck/head assembly.
Why did you remove my edits on the GvG and GvMG gallery pages?
In short, I didn't think they were necessary because they weren't upgrades to the images already on the site.
Both came from SpaceHunterM's video; in their video, the original source of the Godzilla vs. The Cosmic Monster title card was a frame from an eBay auction for the film's trailer. It's exactly the same image we already have on the Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla/Gallery page, except SHM added some artificial filters to make the still image look like moving film. The one you uploaded, because of the digital processing, is a lower quality and less authentic version of the same image presently in the gallery.
The source of the Godzilla on Monster Island title in SpaceHunterM's video is a 1994 Sci-Fi Channel broadcast, preserved on VHS, although SHM stretched it to match the widescreen footage of Godzilla firing his ray, which itself is actually video from a different copy and different version of the movie. As with Cosmic Monster, it's the same source of the image in the Godzilla vs. Gigan/Gallery gallery, only in this case, the Sci-Fi Channel footage was modified to bring it back to its approximate theatrically-projected dimensions. In my opinion, there's room on the site someday for the Godzilla on Monster Island title in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but I think it should come from a frame from a 35mm print. At the very least, using a modification of what we already have is unnecessary. The 4:3 image capture stays because it's more authentic to its source (it's the native aspect ratio of the original Sci-Fi Channel broadcast).
I'm not site staff so I don't have a say in what can or should go around here, but this was my reasoning for undoing those edits.
Thanks for clearing that up. I completely understand! I still think we should have a non pink tinted version of the Cosmic Monster title though. It was red as shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlhaeFMZjZE
It's only pink because the color has faded from the film (color film typically turns red or pink from fading). Non-faded prints would have much more vibrant color. Even in that video the film is severely faded.
I assume you're the same UltraGoji that's been asking me questions about these movies on YouTube. Here are some Godzilla VHS resources:
https://www.tohokingdom.com/articles/art_boxart.htm
https://snakeandboris.blogspot.com/2019/06/updated-do-you-have-any-of-these.html
Oh. I want to find 35mm copys of the Cinema Shares Trilogy. The Terror of Godzilla would be cool too! Also yes, I am the same UltraGoji on YouTube. Thank you, and sorry for the trouble.
