Talk:Godzilla (2012 film project)

1156:

notability. An article must always be notable (reliable sources, etc). It does not always have to conform to the NFF guideline. That's what was argued twice. Some things you may not also know: There is a high level of interest in it, separate from the existing franchise. It has more history than is reflected in the article. I had to fight to add the opening paragraph about the closure of Toho and 10-yr hiatus. And had to fight to note the image was like the Toho films and not the 1998 film. And to note that it was to be a 'reboot.' The compromise was to remove the film infobox and headings and be a stand-alone article as a notable project. And some editors removed a lot of the content, for various reasons. That also seems to have been omitted in your analysis. The rework was done to conform to the Hobbit article style. Since then, every edit seems to be scrutinized by Barsoomian and Erik. You come along and bam, it's still not good enough to be a stand-alone article. Moving it to the franchise article is the second-best spot for the content IMO, but who wants to keep fighting the NFF 'police'?. :-) As well as those who put rumours into the article. And the 'fact-checkers' ... And .. And ...

782:." The italicized part comes from none of the sources but the editors themselves. Policy says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I have looked for sources to provide additional commentary on the concept art, but it is simply not a recurring detail. None of the sources talking about the new director even mention it. That's indicative to me of how unimportant it is to be describing so much of the art and the related marketing. 1180:"every edit seems to be scrutinized by Barsoomian and Erik"!? That's why the Watch function exists. This is part of Knowledge (XXG). Anyone at all can "scrutinise" and contribute. And actually, I did "leave it alone" for a few months, and when I did check back, found that the same bogus Timur Bekmambetov story had come back and that none of the editors who nurture the article had bothered to check if it was true. If you want an article to be taken seriously you have to have standards, and not just accept any rumour that makes the film seem more likely or more important. 452:

for the t-shirt, when a caption is a whole paragraph, then that does not make sense. It needed a cite, as well. A photograph is to illustrate something -in- the article, no? As for the t-shirt, the important part was the augmented reality. That is fairly unique. Augmented reality promotions are fairly new, too. Just saying augmented reality, though, is meaningless. If you are concerned about prominence, simply remove all of the headings. Since there was a heading for development, it was inappropriate under that.

583:

that is a leader in AR, then distributed some tens of thousands of shirts at the leading fan convention? That convention is not a local convention. That seems well-thought out and a good way to kick off the project. Also, I think by using concept art consistent with the Toho Godzilla, (and the breath and the Toho Godzilla roar) they showed some good faith to the fan base, that it would not be 1998 again. I would like to write that back in. And the image just be an illustration of that paragraph.

222:"As for Edwards, he is planning an ambitious, big budget, futuristic film set in a 'post-human world' to be produced by Timur Bekmambetov", so they're working together, but on a different film. And they'll be doing that one first. Edwards said: "I am attached and we are just starting the process," so that's years away if ever; which probably explains why IMDB put it back two years. 802:"Turns out that Legendary is saying that, while the image is definitely theirs, it isn’t necessarily related to the film in development. That’s confusing. Why would Legendary toss the image around at Comic Con if it isn’t neccessarily related to the film? Sure, it could be early concept art and not to be taken as final, but to downplay even the relation to the film is odd." 60: 32: 213:"Multiple sources" saying Callaham was named as the script writer, not the same thing. No one has ever said they've actually read this supposed script or commented on it in any way. The HR article you cite says "Edwards will now work with a new yet-to-hired writer on the script. (David Callaham was the original writer.)" Does not say Callahan actually 1961:

not come up at the AfD. Secondly, I feel like the redirect was sudden, and without process. I don't like sticking it in the franchise article, as I've said it's a summary of a lot of movies. There doesn't seem to be any better solution if it was to be kept and then in a month or two, 'attacked' again over NFF. Which it admittedly fails.

1276:, I think you should give a reason why this should be exempt from policy, rather than just revert the page. If you actually look at the previous AfD, I can't see how the closing administrator came to the conclusion that consensus was keep, when at best it was no overall consensus, with possibly a lean towards delete. -- 646:. For example, I could very well argue that this Godzilla looks more flexible and has longer arms than the Toho incarnation. The problem is, we are not in a position to make such observations, and in addition, this is concept art. There is no indication that the final product (if one is ever made) will look like the art. 1219:- There is not really that much coverage on this project. At least half of the coverage that we have is actually about Toho not wanting to make another Godzilla film for awhile. There is nothing that says this needs to be an "exception", because there is no guarantee that the film will be out any time soon. 1733:

It's typical to not have press releases every day. Your comment on 2014 only pertains to the title. That is speculation, whereas Legendary released a tentative date of 2012. I'd prefer Godzilla (reboot) or something non-dated as a title. At any rate, a news article or press release is the appropriate

476:

My experience is that we have to work with marketing details with care. A franchise film like this one will have blogs tracking everything that happens in relation to the film, and it may not be as valuable in an encyclopedic article about the topic. For example, with augmented reality, I think it is

417:

We can discuss the promotion section a little more politely. I am fine with mentioning the presentation at Comic-Con 2010 in brief (and rather liked having it as a caption as context for the image). I do find the t-shirt detail to be extraneous and borderline non-neutral, though. It is not meaningful

1111:

If you had argued twice for the keep of an article, then not long afterward, the can of worms is opened again, would you not feel like the article is being bullied, gamed or attacked? The film project is to support coverage of films on Knowledge (XXG). It's a positive 'mission', not justification to

665:

It's only discussing the artwork as presented in the article. You are being overly fussy. I can understand rumours, etc. bugging you, but this? I will look for a cite. It does appear to me that you are hounding this article, which you already are on record as wanting to delete. Please consider that.

1140:

is so clear. I don't agree that the closing admin made the right decision as consensus to me seemed to fall on the side of delete. I think the reason it keeps getting nominated isn't due to some of victimisation, but due to the fact that it falls so clearly against policy. We can't have articles

874:

which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not

607:

I still fail to see how the design of a T-shirt rates more than a passing mention in an article about a film. Maybe that's the difference with a "film project", when there isn't an actual film to talk about. (Though it's quite touching how you think that the design will have the slightest relation

436:

It made sense in the caption, but then someone pulled it back into its own section again. I'd have reverted it myself but I know that would just start a war. It's hard to keep a straight face when trivia like this is the main content of the article, so I hope my lack of reverence isn't offensive to

1960:

I was unaware of the history aspect. That is a good point. It has been only two months since the discussion. I felt like it did not have to be revisited so soon. It seems inappropriate to come up for debate so soon. But people have pointed out a lot of valid examples that I was unaware of, and did

1929:

I was not keen on this discussion due to the recent AFD, but I support merging the content to the franchise article. The release year of 2014 appears to come from IMDb, though I am not sure why it was changed. There has been no apparent traction since Edwards was hired as director, and the article

567:

It might be important in an article about "augmented reality". As far as this film "project" is concerned, it's a trivial detail about a marketing stunt. Anyway, I won't spend my time shovelling stuff like that out if you're determined to shovel it in. Feel free to demonstrate to those of us who

534:

as an example of how one could see virtual elements emanating from a physical object (the t-shirt). However, it was not something that generated a ton of attention for the film. It was really the concept art that got people talking, which is why I am fine with mentioning the Comic-Con presentation

451:

It would not be the only thing I would bring back. Between the people who want to put in rumours and speculation and you two wanting to make it completely terse, it is impossible to edit! ;-) I still do not know why you both -want- to edit it, when you're both wanting to delete the article? ;-) As

1934:

with no topic of enduring notability—the film—at the heart of it at this point. Merging and redirecting is not deleting because no key content is lost; the topic is just not recognized as stand-alone right now. It's extremely common for such projects to be in development with no traction for some

582:

It's fair and appropriate to clear out the s**t that goes against guidelines, but details that justify its inclusion have also gotten removed. I'm willing to defend the inclusion on its own terms. Legendary hired a leading comic book illustrator for the concept art, hired an outside software firm

242:

Again, someone put this rumour back in. The claim that Timur Bekmambetov will write the script, or be involved in any way, is unsupported by any of the sources cited. He is working with Gareth Edwards on another project of his own, but not, as far as I can see, any Godzilla film. So I have again

995:

I personally don't think that the amount of media coverage is itself enough to make something notable. The film media is happy to run any press release without critical examination if they can hang an article on it mentioning some celeb or popular movie. Fifty articles all saying that Edwards is

690:

Please assume good faith; I am citing policy here. Discussion needs to be cited, and even if this particular observation is cited, it is not relevant to the film when we have no idea what the creature will actually look like. In addition, I wanted to merge the article's content to the franchise

217:

anything. The Variety article says "Edwards is also expected to work on the script, written by David Callaham", which does, though it's just an assumption ("expected" -- by who?, why?) on their part. If it makes you happy, I'll leave that, though it's just namedropping, if Callaham ever wrote

2016:

I voted for delete at the last AfD and I don't see that there has been any improvement to the article since then. It is, as others have noted, cobbled together from various reports without actually confirming that this "project" will ever see the light of day. Unless it's hurriedly filmed in

1155:

NFF is a guideline. The policy is that an article must be notable and an encyclopedic topic. The NFF guideline basically is there to define the line as to when an article can be allowed on Knowledge (XXG) without challenge. It's there for a reasonable control. By itself, it -does not- define

1826:. And you reverted from the redirect, but have yet to give a convincing argument as to why this article should be exempt from guidelines. How about we revert to a redirect, copy the info back across to the franchise page and wait for some arguments in favour of this article? -- 2056:

Maybe The Dead of the Night film project is just a bit less notable? Is it part of a franchise of 27 films, several television series, comic books, merchandise, several film studies and whatever else? Stretching over 50 years? Is its main character as iconic as Godzilla?

1939:

remake, for example, has had spikes of development activity for the past decade or so. A redirect means that the page history so far is preserved, and if a film is produced, the history can be moved to the ultimate title, may it be "Godzilla (2014 film)" or whatever.

330:. I am advocating a merge of the current streamlined content to the franchise article. It was necessary to identify the key events because the stream-of-consciousness news reports and rumors misleadingly presented this topic as stand-alone when it is not. 1758:

I'm not asking you to manufacture facts, just to assess them. And there are very few, after this article has been here in one form or another for about a year. And I don't care what title this article has; but it's silly to pretend "2012" is justified.

2040:. Given that movie is scheduled for a 2012 release date, we have a notability guideline that says this article shouldn't exist and there is no policy that actually supports its existence, this article should definitely be deleted, er, redirected. -- 1072:

Knowledge (XXG) is not paper. When something is notable, it does not have to belong to any 'project'. The projects are supposed to be 'supportive' of positive results. Like promoting the coverage of 'x'. Not attack an article three times.

103:

Because when its a title of spmthing such as a book, movie, or name its capitalized and Godzilla is a name for both a movie and a monster and the reson its sound like a advertisment is because they havent put more facts out to the public

717:

I asked -you- to consider your edits, please don't turn it around. You've been doing lots of reverts. In this case, as I said, the sentence only discusses the artwork presented in the article. It's not extrapolating anything.

194:

Having easily found multiple sources that state that David Callaham wrote a script, and that Edwards is dealing with Timur Bekmambetov in its re-write, I have souced those facts and returned them to the article. Best regards,

288:

If you guys are really voting for deleting this article, then why are you spending so much time hacking it up? It is obvious there is no writer amongst the lot of you! Even with the reporting of rumours, it was READABLE!!!!

88:

Why was my revision removed? The article's just been reverted, and it sounds more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. "Legendary Pictures, creators of such films such as..." And why is the name capitalized?

70: 218:

anything it's been discarded. However, I can't see in any of the sources you list that Bekmambetov is working on Godzilla in any capacity, let alone is (re)writing the script. So I deleted that. A little Googling found

165:. I reviewed the guidelines about using YouTube, and assuming that there is no copyright violation, we can reference the video and quote Rogers about his plans for the film. Does anyone else have an issue with this? 773:

I am only taking a high-quality approach to the article. It was in bad shape when it was posted for deletion. We have reported what has actually happened so far, and it is too easy for padding to occur. It happened

691:

article, which is different from outright deletion. I am interested in reporting plans in the right place and creating stand-alone articles when plans become films-in-making. For example, I am incubating Luhrmann's

946:

Yeah, but everyone thinks that THEIR project should be an exception. And soon you create a loophole that any "eagerly anticipated" film will qualify for, regardless of how far it is from actually being realised.

354:

Left out a smiley before. :-) Don't mean to sound so harsh, more wanting to sound like a wake-up call. I would advocate leaving it alone, or copying it to a user space. This is obviously a work-in-progress. :-)

1776:

Okay - I'm tempted to change this back to a redirect already. Only one editor seems to think this article should be here, and has yet to give a good reason as to why it should be exempt from the guidelines at

389:

That T-shirt keeps coming back. Is there any other article about a film (sorry, "film project") where a T-shirt is given such prominence, let alone a whole subsection? Should we just retitle the whole article

535:

and the art. The augmented reality technique was essentially a gimmick that did not have lasting value. My sense is that marketing details should be tempered with indicators of relevance from other sources.

1640:

Do not tell me what articles I can work on or comment on again. And if you have any problems with my conduct, complain in an appropriate venue, do not cast aspersions on me to devalue my opinions.

1034:

as an example, there's a lot of information there that couldn't realistically be housed elsewhere. This article does not have this problem though, as all information sits nicely on the

2109:

seems pretty straightforward, and since no crucial content will be lost, this can always be undone later on if production of the film begins in earnest and more news is forthcoming.

42: 1141:

for every film not yet underway that may or may not be produced. That said, I wasn't advocating a delete, merely preservation of the material somewhere more appropriate. --

969:

The exception being an extreme case, where there is an unprecedented amount of media coverage that cannot otherwise be contained in "articles about its subject material". --

418:

detail; kind of like saying the specific date a film's trailer came out, provided that there was no other kind of reaction. Would the Comic-Con detail in a caption suffice?

2081:

No, that's not it at all. The movie, which actually has a cast, crew, script and all of the other things you expect a movie to have (unlike this one), appears to meet

1654:

I have -never- intended to offend you. I put that comment on your talk page. I did not bring it up anywhere else. I meant it in a good spirit. As in, let's not fight.

398:

where all the details can be given? After all it does actually exist, unlike the film, and there are 31,900 Google hits on "Godzilla T-shirt", so it obviously meets

778:

and after some discussion has been summarized more concisely. Here, this is the passage in question: "Legendary commissioned a new conceptual artwork of Godzilla,

742:

I've now added a citation. If you continue to nitpick, I will consider asking an admin to look into this. I'm not sure I can assume good faith anymore, seriously.

506:

What do you mean it is 'indiscriminate'? As of today, I'm not aware of other augmented reality promotions for films. Not something I follow closely, I'll admit.

1616:

It was good enough for the Beatles to say. When there's a disagreement, 'let it be'. Agree to disagree, not keep fighting. Seems clear. You were pretty heated.

804:

That was my second concern, that even if it is sourced, is it really meaningful? Like I said, none of the coverage about the director referred back to the art.

2028:

commence principal photography in my town in September 2011. Despite that movie being so much further along in the production process than this project is,

1717:. The film is not happening before 2014 at the earliest; the "attached" director is working on another film this year, and no one else has even been named. 882:

guideline: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available."

142:

I was wondering if Toho is helping making it and it has the Toho seal will you move it to the milenium series or will it start as a new untiteld series.

1388:

The content is too much for the franchise page, which is 'summary style'. It would be 'recentism' is what I think it's called here at Knowledge (XXG).

549:

s viral marketing was also well-covered. There is not a lot of weight to detailing the AR novelty of teasing concept art for a film that may not be.

696: 893:, and reading through the discussion, consensus was split (possibly even in favour of delete/merge). However, this article should not exist under 1990:: With all due respect to all editors who display such passion for the subject matter - NFF does seem pretty clear in this case. (oops -- sig:) — 219: 1578:

You're on record as supporting the delete already. The franchise is a summary style article. The other sections summarize over ten films each.

1798:

A few hours is not enough to determine consensus. An AfD, which is what this is by de facto, gives more time. Why are you the judge and jury?

1564:

Too much content? There's only one actual fact about the production: Gareth Edwards is attached as director. Nothing else is newsworthy.

875:

be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production."

477:

indiscriminate to detail it because the marketing technique did not necessarily get people excited about the film in a unique way. Think

2033: 2022: 847: 1112:

go after articles that don't fit. Less police, more nurture. If an article is not deleted twice over a guideline, why open that again?

924:, but there is nothing exceptional about the development of this film. In fact, I think that this is exactly the kind of article that 996:

attached as a director doesn't make that fact any more significant -- especially when he is committed to doing another movie first.

1246:- This should have gone to discussion first. As noted, there have been two FAILED AfDs. I've undone the redirect. Get a consensus. 1506:

With GNG, and considered not a film project -- note no standard sections or infobox -- that's how the article stands on its own.

2117: 1602:

And you're "on record" as opposing it. What's your point? Or is this relating to your instructing me to "let the article be"?

837: 1422:

is far further through its development than this is. Sheesh! I can't even see how this can be considered controversial -

123:

This page is a complete duplicate. There is already an identical page. That is why this page is a canidate for deletion. --

1290:

What you're saying is just a rehash of the proponents of the AfDs. As stated before, the project has general notability.

1531: 530:

I meant "indiscriminate" as in it is not particularly relevant for this topic. For example, it may be better suited at

66: 38: 2021:

certainly seems to apply here. In fact, this is an excellent example for NFF. As a sort of comparison, the sequel to

608:

to the actual movie, should it come to pass.) You've got a few days till the AfD is decided, show em what you got.

2155: 1949: 813: 791: 708: 655: 558: 497: 427: 339: 174: 2029: 1416:(as one example only) to see how it is common practice for future films to sit happily on a franchise page. And 1031: 921: 204: 800:

Okay, I reviewed the source. I see that the website makes the comparison. But earlier in the article, it says,

851: 1822:

Ha! I said I was "tempted". However, opinion seems almost unanimous. And it's in clear contravention of

843: 2090: 2045: 897:, and there is no reason, given the the length of the article, that it can't and shouldn't be included at 94: 916:

In addition, would like to say that I understand the need for these so-called "film project" pages for

1999: 1918: 1764: 1722: 1683: 1645: 1607: 1569: 1535: 1444:. There is a paragraph there on the franchise page. That's appropriate, with a link to this article. 1185: 1035: 1001: 952: 898: 867: 613: 573: 442: 407: 248: 227: 197: 2017:

someone's back yard I really can't see it being ready for release in 2012. There simply isn't time.

1931: 59: 31: 2132: 1831: 1786: 1547: 1497: 1431: 1418: 1375: 1281: 1146: 1102: 1043: 974: 933: 906: 124: 2070: 1974: 1891: 1853: 1811: 1747: 1667: 1629: 1591: 1519: 1457: 1401: 1327: 1303: 1259: 1169: 1125: 1086: 768: 755: 731: 679: 596: 519: 465: 368: 302: 271: 128: 1492:

with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. --

1097:

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. But the guidelines are here for a reason. --

484:

s trailer, though the article is not quite so polished on the topic. A better example might be

2127:

Okay - given that alaney2k has withdrawn their objection, seems unanimous. Will redirect. --

2086: 2041: 1229: 531: 1875: 890: 327: 1413: 1357: 90: 2106: 2082: 2032:

does not exist because NFF says that it shouldn't. The only references to the movie are at

2018: 1823: 1778: 1714: 1539: 1485: 1477: 1469: 1441: 1423: 1273: 1137: 1027: 925: 894: 886: 879: 871: 642:

The observation comparing and contrasting the Godzilla concept art to past incarnations is

399: 323: 2159: 2136: 2121: 2094: 2076: 2049: 2037: 2006: 1994: 1980: 1953: 1922: 1914: 1897: 1859: 1835: 1817: 1790: 1768: 1760: 1753: 1726: 1718: 1687: 1679: 1673: 1649: 1641: 1635: 1611: 1603: 1597: 1573: 1565: 1551: 1525: 1501: 1463: 1435: 1407: 1379: 1362: 1333: 1309: 1285: 1265: 1234: 1189: 1181: 1175: 1150: 1131: 1106: 1092: 1047: 1005: 997: 978: 956: 948: 937: 910: 855: 817: 795: 761: 737: 712: 685: 659: 617: 609: 602: 577: 569: 562: 525: 501: 485: 471: 446: 438: 431: 411: 403: 374: 343: 308: 277: 252: 244: 231: 223: 207: 178: 151: 147: 132: 113: 109: 98: 643: 319: 17: 1347:; if anything sourceable is not already in the franchise article, add it there. Cheers! 2151: 2128: 2112: 1945: 1827: 1782: 1543: 1493: 1427: 1371: 1277: 1142: 1136:

I really am at a loss to explain how it wasn't deleted last time it was nominated when

1098: 1039: 970: 929: 902: 809: 787: 704: 651: 554: 493: 423: 335: 170: 315: 2146:

There has been no news since the director was attached to this project last January.

2060: 1964: 1881: 1843: 1801: 1737: 1657: 1619: 1581: 1509: 1447: 1391: 1317: 1293: 1249: 1159: 1115: 1076: 745: 721: 669: 586: 509: 455: 358: 292: 261: 1220: 1348: 836:

Legendary Pictures announced to discontinue the movie due to the quake and the

878:

All of the text has been preserved at the location of the redirect as per the

162: 143: 105: 1030:

clearly states that these articles shouldn't exist. However, if you do take

2147: 1941: 805: 783: 700: 647: 550: 489: 419: 331: 166: 1781:. I'll ask one more time - why should this article be the exception? -- 1678:

It sounds more like "Keep away from my project" than "Let's not fight".

402:. Then we could just delete the remainder of the "film project" page. 1910: 391: 2085:

now but filming hasn't commenced. Therefore WP:NFF comes into play. --

488:, which has more to do with the broad strokes of marketing the film. 1370:

or deletion. Article can be recreated if the movie is ever made.

780:

similar and consistent with the character seen in the Toho films

697:

Knowledge (XXG):Article Incubator/The Great Gatsby (2012 film)

54: 26: 1840:

It's important that the image appear too. Not just the text.

775: 189: 1472:

clearly doesn't apply here. What's the point of the

1530:

So you're saying that because the article is called

1909:. The coverage is not exactly unusual. Compare 161:There was a blogspot.com article that covered 8: 2034:Tomorrow, When the War Began (film)#Sequels 1713:, by the way, if anyone is counting. Fails 568:are "obviously not writers" how to do it. 1538:, it should not follow the guidelines at 1484:notability guidelines? The guideline at 243:removed that statement from the article. 1935:time after an initial announcement. The 69:on 28 January 2011 (UTC). The result of 1913:for example (and there are many more). 41:on 31 August 2010 (UTC). The result of 7: 899:Godzilla (franchise)#American reboot 868:Godzilla (franchise)#American reboot 314:Much of the previous content failed 1480:, if they can be superseded by the 1026:Don't get me wrong - I'm with you. 25: 885:I see that this has been sent to 832:Could not find a source for this. 542:s trailer was well-covered, and 58: 30: 1874:I've added this article to the 65:This article was nominated for 37:This article was nominated for 870:as this article clearly fails 1: 1476:notabilty guidelines such as 618:18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 603:17:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 578:16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 563:16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 526:16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 502:16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 472:16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 447:14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 432:12:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 412:03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 375:16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 344:15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 309:15:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 232:06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 208:04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 2030:The Dead of the Night (film) 2023:Tomorrow, When the War Began 1532:Godzilla (2012 film project) 1414:Superman in film#2012 reboot 838:Fukushima I nuclear accident 179:22:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 152:21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 133:00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 157:Interview with Brian Rogers 99:02:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2175: 2137:08:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 2122:20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2095:21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2077:21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2050:20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2007:18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1981:18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1954:17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1923:17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1898:16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1860:18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1836:16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1818:16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1791:16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1769:16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1754:16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1727:15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1688:03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 1674:18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1650:16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1636:16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1612:16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1598:15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1574:15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1552:16:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1526:16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1502:15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1464:15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1436:15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1408:15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1380:14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1363:14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1334:22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1310:15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1286:14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1266:14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1235:13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1190:02:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC) 1176:20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1151:20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1132:18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1107:16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1093:16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1048:12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 1006:12:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 979:11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 957:11:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 938:10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 911:09:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 866:I have redirected this to 856:10:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 278:14:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 258:Agree. Right thing to do. 253:10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 2160:12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 1734:thing to quote on dates. 1032:The Hobbit (film project) 922:The Hobbit (film project) 818:19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 796:19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 762:19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 738:19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 713:19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 686:18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 660:15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 486:Valkyrie (film)#Marketing 119:To the maker of this page 114:20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 18:Talk:Godzilla (2012 film) 1314:Withdrawn my objection. 928:is in place to stop. -- 889:before, but i'm being 2038:Tomorrow series#Films 1542:? What nonsense! -- 1536:Godzilla (2012 film) 1036:Godzilla (franchise) 862:Changing to redirect 1930:consists mainly of 1419:Man of Steel (film) 1272:As this page fails 163:this YouTube video 2005: 1232: 1227: 846:comment added by 772: 644:original research 638:Original research 532:augmented reality 238:Timur Bekmambetov 81: 80: 53: 52: 16:(Redirected from 2166: 2104:Support redirect 2073: 2068: 2065: 2014:Support redirect 2004: 2002: 1991: 1988:Support redirect 1977: 1972: 1969: 1894: 1889: 1886: 1856: 1851: 1848: 1814: 1809: 1806: 1750: 1745: 1742: 1711:Support redirect 1670: 1665: 1662: 1632: 1627: 1624: 1594: 1589: 1586: 1522: 1517: 1514: 1460: 1455: 1452: 1404: 1399: 1396: 1368:Support redirect 1355: 1330: 1325: 1322: 1306: 1301: 1298: 1262: 1257: 1254: 1230: 1225: 1221: 1217:Support redirect 1172: 1167: 1164: 1128: 1123: 1120: 1089: 1084: 1081: 858: 766: 758: 753: 750: 734: 729: 726: 693:The Great Gatsby 682: 677: 674: 599: 594: 591: 548: 541: 522: 517: 514: 483: 468: 463: 460: 371: 366: 363: 305: 300: 297: 274: 269: 266: 200: 62: 55: 34: 27: 21: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2144: 2120: 2071: 2061: 2058: 2000: 1992: 1975: 1965: 1962: 1892: 1882: 1879: 1854: 1844: 1841: 1812: 1802: 1799: 1748: 1738: 1735: 1668: 1658: 1655: 1630: 1620: 1617: 1592: 1582: 1579: 1520: 1510: 1507: 1458: 1448: 1445: 1412:Have a look at 1402: 1392: 1389: 1349: 1328: 1318: 1315: 1304: 1294: 1291: 1260: 1250: 1247: 1223: 1170: 1160: 1157: 1126: 1116: 1113: 1087: 1077: 1074: 864: 841: 840:. So removed. 834: 756: 746: 743: 732: 722: 719: 680: 670: 667: 640: 597: 587: 584: 546: 544:The Dark Knight 539: 520: 510: 507: 481: 466: 456: 453: 395: 387: 369: 359: 356: 303: 293: 290: 286: 272: 262: 259: 240: 198: 186: 159: 140: 121: 86: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2172: 2170: 2143: 2140: 2125: 2124: 2116: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2053: 2052: 2010: 2009: 1984: 1983: 1957: 1956: 1926: 1925: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1878:notice board. 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1730: 1729: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1383: 1382: 1365: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1269: 1268: 1243:Do not support 1238: 1237: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 962: 961: 960: 959: 941: 940: 863: 860: 833: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 740: 639: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 565: 396:(2014) T-shirt 393: 386: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 347: 346: 285: 282: 281: 280: 239: 236: 235: 234: 185: 182: 158: 155: 139: 136: 120: 117: 85: 82: 79: 78: 71:the discussion 63: 51: 50: 43:the discussion 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2171: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2141: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2066: 2064: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2015: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2003: 1997: 1996: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1970: 1968: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1887: 1885: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1861: 1857: 1849: 1847: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1807: 1805: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1743: 1741: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1663: 1661: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1625: 1623: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1587: 1585: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1515: 1513: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1453: 1451: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426:is clear! -- 1425: 1421: 1420: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1405: 1397: 1395: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1354: 1353: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1335: 1331: 1323: 1321: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1299: 1297: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1255: 1253: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1228: 1226: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1165: 1163: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1121: 1119: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1082: 1080: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1007: 1003: 999: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 980: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 958: 954: 950: 945: 944: 943: 942: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 883: 881: 876: 873: 869: 861: 859: 857: 853: 849: 848:27.32.132.209 845: 839: 831: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 770: 769:edit conflict 765: 764: 763: 759: 751: 749: 741: 739: 735: 727: 725: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 689: 688: 687: 683: 675: 673: 664: 663: 662: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 637: 619: 615: 611: 606: 605: 604: 600: 592: 590: 581: 580: 579: 575: 571: 566: 564: 560: 556: 552: 545: 538: 533: 529: 528: 527: 523: 515: 513: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 480: 475: 474: 473: 469: 461: 459: 450: 449: 448: 444: 440: 435: 434: 433: 429: 425: 421: 416: 415: 414: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 384: 376: 372: 364: 362: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312: 311: 310: 306: 298: 296: 283: 279: 275: 267: 265: 257: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 216: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 205: 202: 201: 192: 191: 183: 181: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 156: 154: 153: 149: 145: 137: 135: 134: 130: 126: 118: 116: 115: 111: 107: 101: 100: 96: 92: 83: 76: 72: 68: 64: 61: 57: 56: 48: 44: 40: 36: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2145: 2126: 2110: 2103: 2087:AussieLegend 2062: 2042:AussieLegend 2025: 2013: 1993: 1987: 1966: 1936: 1932:news reports 1906: 1883: 1845: 1803: 1775: 1739: 1710: 1659: 1621: 1583: 1511: 1490:specifically 1489: 1481: 1473: 1449: 1417: 1393: 1367: 1358: 1351: 1350: 1344: 1319: 1295: 1251: 1242: 1241: 1231:(Contact me) 1222: 1216: 1161: 1117: 1078: 917: 884: 877: 865: 835: 801: 779: 747: 723: 692: 671: 641: 588: 543: 536: 511: 478: 457: 388: 360: 294: 287: 263: 241: 220:this report: 214: 203: 196: 193: 187: 160: 141: 122: 102: 87: 74: 46: 842:—Preceding 537:Cloverfield 479:Cloverfield 324:WP:NOT#NEWS 91:JohnVMaster 84:My Revision 2129:Rob Sinden 1915:MickMacNee 1828:Rob Sinden 1783:Rob Sinden 1761:Barsoomian 1719:Barsoomian 1680:Barsoomian 1642:Barsoomian 1604:Barsoomian 1566:Barsoomian 1544:Rob Sinden 1494:Rob Sinden 1428:Rob Sinden 1278:Rob Sinden 1182:Barsoomian 1143:Rob Sinden 1099:Rob Sinden 1040:Rob Sinden 998:Barsoomian 971:Rob Sinden 949:Barsoomian 930:Rob Sinden 918:exceptions 903:Rob Sinden 610:Barsoomian 570:Barsoomian 439:Barsoomian 404:Barsoomian 245:Barsoomian 224:Barsoomian 138:Movie TOHO 2113:Torchiest 1372:Onthegogo 1038:page. -- 392:Godzilla 190:this edit 2156:contribs 2063:alaney2k 1967:alaney2k 1950:contribs 1907:Redirect 1884:alaney2k 1846:alaney2k 1804:alaney2k 1740:alaney2k 1660:alaney2k 1622:alaney2k 1584:alaney2k 1534:and not 1512:alaney2k 1474:specific 1450:alaney2k 1394:alaney2k 1345:Redirect 1320:alaney2k 1296:alaney2k 1252:alaney2k 1224:BIGNOLE 1162:alaney2k 1118:alaney2k 1079:alaney2k 844:unsigned 814:contribs 792:contribs 748:alaney2k 724:alaney2k 709:contribs 672:alaney2k 656:contribs 589:alaney2k 559:contribs 512:alaney2k 498:contribs 458:alaney2k 437:anyone. 428:contribs 361:alaney2k 340:contribs 295:alaney2k 264:alaney2k 199:Schmidt, 175:contribs 125:BNSF1995 67:deletion 39:deletion 2142:No news 1911:Alien 5 1876:WP:AN/I 1482:general 385:T-shirt 328:WP:NPOV 284:Hacking 2107:WP:NFF 2083:WP:GNG 2019:WP:NFF 1824:WP:NFF 1779:WP:NFF 1715:WP:NFF 1540:WP:NFF 1488:deals 1486:WP:NFF 1478:WP:NFF 1470:WP:GNG 1442:WP:GNG 1440:So is 1424:WP:NFF 1352:bd2412 1274:WP:NFF 1138:WP:NFF 1028:WP:NFF 926:WP:NFF 895:WP:NFF 880:WP:NFF 872:WP:NFF 400:WP:GNG 394:(2012) 326:, and 184:Script 2118:edits 1937:Akira 920:like 901:. -- 320:WP:RS 215:wrote 188:inre 144:GZ411 106:GZ411 2152:talk 2148:Erik 2133:talk 2091:talk 2072:talk 2046:talk 2036:and 2026:will 1995:Ched 1976:talk 1946:talk 1942:Erik 1919:talk 1893:talk 1855:talk 1832:talk 1813:talk 1787:talk 1765:talk 1749:talk 1723:talk 1684:talk 1669:talk 1646:talk 1631:talk 1608:talk 1593:talk 1570:talk 1548:talk 1521:talk 1498:talk 1468:But 1459:talk 1432:talk 1403:talk 1376:talk 1329:talk 1305:talk 1282:talk 1261:talk 1186:talk 1171:talk 1147:talk 1127:talk 1103:talk 1088:talk 1044:talk 1002:talk 975:talk 953:talk 934:talk 907:talk 891:bold 852:talk 810:talk 806:Erik 788:talk 784:Erik 776:here 757:talk 733:talk 705:talk 701:Erik 681:talk 652:talk 648:Erik 614:talk 598:talk 574:talk 555:talk 551:Erik 521:talk 494:talk 490:Erik 467:talk 443:talk 424:talk 420:Erik 408:talk 370:talk 336:talk 332:Erik 316:WP:V 304:talk 273:talk 249:talk 228:talk 171:talk 167:Erik 148:talk 129:talk 110:talk 104:yet. 95:talk 75:keep 73:was 47:keep 45:was 887:AfD 695:at 2158:) 2154:| 2135:) 2093:) 2075:) 2059:ʘ 2048:) 2001:? 1998:: 1979:) 1963:ʘ 1952:) 1948:| 1921:) 1896:) 1880:ʘ 1858:) 1842:ʘ 1834:) 1816:) 1800:ʘ 1789:) 1767:) 1752:) 1736:ʘ 1725:) 1686:) 1672:) 1656:ʘ 1648:) 1634:) 1618:ʘ 1610:) 1596:) 1580:ʘ 1572:) 1550:) 1524:) 1508:ʘ 1500:) 1462:) 1446:ʘ 1434:) 1406:) 1390:ʘ 1378:) 1332:) 1316:ʘ 1308:) 1292:ʘ 1284:) 1264:) 1248:ʘ 1188:) 1174:) 1158:ʘ 1149:) 1130:) 1114:ʘ 1105:) 1091:) 1075:ʘ 1046:) 1004:) 977:) 955:) 936:) 909:) 854:) 816:) 812:| 794:) 790:| 760:) 744:ʘ 736:) 720:ʘ 711:) 707:| 699:. 684:) 668:ʘ 658:) 654:| 616:) 601:) 585:ʘ 576:) 561:) 557:| 524:) 508:ʘ 500:) 496:| 470:) 454:ʘ 445:) 430:) 426:| 410:) 373:) 357:ʘ 342:) 338:| 322:, 318:, 307:) 291:ʘ 276:) 260:ʘ 251:) 230:) 177:) 173:| 150:) 131:) 112:) 97:) 2150:( 2131:( 2111:— 2089:( 2069:( 2067:ʘ 2044:( 1973:( 1971:ʘ 1944:( 1917:( 1890:( 1888:ʘ 1852:( 1850:ʘ 1830:( 1810:( 1808:ʘ 1785:( 1763:( 1746:( 1744:ʘ 1721:( 1682:( 1666:( 1664:ʘ 1644:( 1628:( 1626:ʘ 1606:( 1590:( 1588:ʘ 1568:( 1546:( 1518:( 1516:ʘ 1496:( 1456:( 1454:ʘ 1430:( 1400:( 1398:ʘ 1374:( 1359:T 1326:( 1324:ʘ 1302:( 1300:ʘ 1280:( 1258:( 1256:ʘ 1184:( 1168:( 1166:ʘ 1145:( 1124:( 1122:ʘ 1101:( 1085:( 1083:ʘ 1042:( 1000:( 973:( 951:( 932:( 905:( 850:( 808:( 786:( 771:) 767:( 754:( 752:ʘ 730:( 728:ʘ 703:( 678:( 676:ʘ 650:( 612:( 595:( 593:ʘ 572:( 553:( 547:' 540:' 518:( 516:ʘ 492:( 482:' 464:( 462:ʘ 441:( 422:( 406:( 367:( 365:ʘ 334:( 301:( 299:ʘ 270:( 268:ʘ 247:( 226:( 169:( 146:( 127:( 108:( 93:( 77:. 49:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index