Talk:King Kong Appears in Edo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] HOAX?

There seems to have been no information at all about this film before 2004 or so. No mention in 'Famous Monsters of Film land' which regularly had articles about lost or rare sci fi/horror films. No film books mention this film. Fuminori Ohashi, who worked on the Godzilla/Gojira films never mentioned this film once in numerous interviews, despite the fact this would have been his first film as a special effects artist, and he would not have that position again for 16 years when 'Gojira'. One would reasonably believe that Ohashi might have mentioned working on this film.

The supposed director (Sôya Kumagai) has no autobiographical information at all, and no other film credits are to be found, either on imdb, or through other extensive searches on the internet.

The supposed writer (Daijô Aoyama) has no autobiographical information at all, and no other film credits are to be found, either on imdb, or through other extensive searches on the internet.

Fuminori Ohashi, a real special effects and costume/make up artist, is noted as being the special effects man here. If this is to be believed, then he worked on this as a special effects artist and then did nothing until Gojira (1954) 16 years later

The supposed company that made that has only one other credit to its name and that is the other fictional Kong movie the hoaxer posted: Edo ni arawareta Kingu Kongu: Ôgon no maki (1938) this alleged company produced no other films.

None of the following cast members have any other film credits whatsoever. You would think that at least a few of them would have done films before and after. The overwhelming majority of these alleged actors seem to not have existed, save for this alleged film:

Ryutaro Hibiki


Reizaburo Ichikawa


Ginbei Inoue


Ryunosuke Kabayama


Keisuke Matsudaira


Eizaburo Matsumoto


Shojiro Ogata


Shotaro Shiba


Shin Taga


Keinosuke Yashiro


The only exceptions being: Reiko Mishima has one other alleged film credit in 1940's 'Ryôgoku no san'nin-musume Noboru Takashima has five other film credits in 1931-1932, then only the alleged Kong film in 1938, and nothing beyond that. The 6 year lapse in activity is somewhat odd. Fuminori Ohashi, who as previously mentioned, never mentioned this film during his lifetime.

The only alleged photos from this film are exceptionally small jpeg files which make close inspection very difficult. One photo seems to show a man in a gorilla costume holding a female doll and scaling what seems to be re-dressed packing crates. Given that the alleged film takes place in Edo during the middle ages, you would expect to see the architecture typical of Japan at that time (Sloped triangular roofs) instead of the box like buildings that are shown. The second photo alleges to show a movie poster, but again the image size is too small to accurately scrutinize. It looks to be a re-dressed 'Gojira' poster from 1954, only with images of what seems to be a man in ape make up, and a miniature female. In short, it looks like it was done in Adobe Photoshop and then shrunk small enough to deter close inspection. On message boards and on Wikipedia, the author(s?) mention that these photos come from "rare books" found in Japan. It's pretty likely that if this film actually existed, we would have found many more images, and someone in Japan would have surely scanned photos from these books and uploaded larger images. The characters listed for this film feature an unusual number of characters with first and surnames. Search most films from Japan, or America, at that time and it would be unusual for so many minor characters to be listed by first and last name. Usually only the main characters would have these distinctions.

Some characters listings are just simply odd: 'Man in charcoal shop', 'Boy in rice shop', 'Kuroami, hunchback', as well as the misspelled (at least I believe it's misspelled) ' Clerk at soy source shop'. I'm guessing Kuroami the hunchback stopped by the rice shop, patted the boy on the head, bought some charcoal at the charcoal shop (31 kinds of charcoal: we guarantee it!) stopped by the 'soy source shop' and then went home to barbeque his rice. Perhaps he did all this prior to Kong's arrival, or perhaps this was part of the celebration after Kong was defeated!

In addition, the article cites supposed negative reviews, a build up towards the release date, "rare books" that have photos that "prove" the films existence, but never state the title of these books, when they were published, what newspapers reviewed this film, what the reviewers actually said, where they got any of this information or any other evidence to corroborate that this movie existed. With such a big build up to the release date, one would surmise that there would be quite a lot of surviving publicity materials such as stills, lobby cards, and posters. Even in 1930s Japan films were advertised in newspapers. Why haven't these surfaced? Why was there apparently no mention or recollection of this film from 1938-2005 or so???

Another oddity is that other than stating that Kong attacks medival Edo, the writer/writers/hoaxer(s)do not specify what the actual plot was. For instance, how was Kong brought to Edo? How was he defeated?


Like Martin Balsam's detective character in 'Psycho' said: "This ain't jelling" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.189.236 (talk) 23:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC)


None of this proves that the film does not exist, but give the growing number of improbabilities, and inconsistencies, it's hard to conclude that this is anything other than a hoax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.189.236 (talk) 00:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


The purported photo of "Kong" used as "proof" by the likely hoaxters, clearly shows buildings that are of European architecture. There were no such buildings in Edo, and few in modern Tokyo. If you blow up the photo you can clearly see the buildings one with a steeple{!!??}

I, personally, don't think it's true. This is too farfetched, and, frankly, the world would have known by now if the original movie was a rip off. Only one review on imdb says the reviewer watched it, and there is no mention of a plot, special effects or ANYTHING at all. The review only says a (and I paraphrase) "Few people in the world, (the reviewer) included have seen it". If this movie existed and I could have seen it, I would be damn quick to spread the word and prove it exists.Dskzero (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the bottom section, regarding the book which mentions this movie. For awhile, the image was one of the larger arguments in favor of the movie; but, given the mention in the Japanese (and presumably in the English translated version of the) book, we can't pretend the movie didn't exist just because the image is dubious. Neier (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAKE REFERENCES

It is patently absurd that fan sites which have repeated the hoax, are cited as sources, even though they are simply repeating the hoax, and (as always) offering NO PROOF WHATSOEVER! I suppose every conspiracy theory, or crank web site is true then! These "sources" are not sources! They simply repeat the hoax! That is all!

[edit] BOOK CITED AS SOURCE

The fact that this alleged film is mentioned in a book published in late 2005, and reported as fact PROVES NOTHING EITHER! The writer may believe it existed. but he offers NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER! None! Any fair assessment of this situation simply shows that there is no reason to believe this film existed and plenty (READ THE ITEMS ABOVE) that this is a HOAX! Nobody has offered any explanations for the MANY, MANY inconsistencies. No has offered ANY proof that there was such a film.

Don't worry - it's under scrutiny. But unsigned anonymous rants don't carry much weight either. Clearly you don't get WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Whether they provide evidence or not, books from respectable publishers are viewed as reliable sources. Robert Hood, as someone with an established reputation in the relevant field, also comes well under WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). SciFan Japan is a well-established online magazine, with an article provifing direct quotes from a known figure saying he was involved. All that trumps speculation. Gordonofcartoon 10:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you referring to my comments as 'rants'. As for 'SciFi Japan', again a fan site, you say it's well know, and I have never heard of it, nor do I understand what "provifing" is, but the fact remains that this is the first time that there has ever been any mention of the film by the special effects man, and this seems to be the only source for it, as well as a fairly recent, and clearly suspect. When and to whom was this quite made? When was this interview? Did he explain why the studio that made this alleged film vanished after it's making? Why the cast vanished? Why no publicity materials or poster survive? Why 'Edo' has European architecture? Why there was no mention from him or anyone else about this film until the early 2000s? Did he offer information as to where these elusive rare books are? I'm sorry, this is clearly bogus. This quote is bogus. Again, everything points to a hoax, it points no where else! Does anyone have source that mentions this film before 2000? Or any real source at all.Something being mentioned in a 2005 book proves nothing, especially when the author offers no source and is simply repeating misinformation started on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are "rants" because they use lots of strong emotional language, UPPERCASE WORDS, and exclamation points. Rants aren't necessarily wrong, but the emotional tone doesn't help your case any either. I'd also point out that absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.
That said, I do think the IMDB entry for this movie sheds some light, particularly the user comments section, which has several unusually detailed and fairly suspicious comments which seem to be tongue-in-cheek. One person claims that he had to wrestle a giant octopus in order to be allowed to view the one remaining copy of this film. That sounds like someone participating in a joke, not a real review.
My guess is it's bogus, but proving it one way or the other is going to require a bit more research than can be done with a web browser. Bill Mercer 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the IMDb is to be discounted. It's not widely kmown that it's compiled from user contributions, and while it does go through an editorial process, I don't think it's at a level where they're in a position to check the truth of everything obscure. What worries me is that we're being asked to apply a more stringent standard of proof than normal. Many reliable sources don't say where they got their information. If two books and three articles said Mr X was born in Toronto, we'd accept it: we don't accept the view of someone who doesn't like that idea that all of them are repeating a hoax.
I'm sure there is some garbling going on, simply because it's an obscure one-horse film in Japanese, and the majority of us here are in no position to look for and read contemporary sources.
Interestingly, at the AFD someone has just found an online discussion [1] tracking it back to an older book, and confirming some confusion about images. That discussion isn't a reliable source in itself, but it does give a lead for further investigation. Gordonofcartoon 20:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that, at least up until this time, no evidence has been provided that proves this film did exist. There are three links which just essentially repeat the same contention as the article in question. There is no research in this articles, just a reiteration of the aforementioned claims, so as verification, these links essentially mean nothing. The book mentioned is in the same category. The book was published in late 2005, and again just repeats the same story without any evidence. Most suspect is the supposed interview where the special effects man is said to mention that he worked on this film "fifty years ago", which would place the interview as having taken place in 1988. No source is cited for the inteview and there is no known record of the special effects artist having ever having mentioned the film at any other point in his long career. Simply put, these quotes are put on a fan website that was created in 2006 a few years after this "film" was first mentioned. There seems to be no other source for this alleged quote, nor have any quotes or stories from the other cast members surfaced. Given the fact that the studio, the director, almost the entire cast, publicity materials, posters, trailers, stills (exempting the very small and very suspect indistict photo with a background that could not be Japan) and the film itself have all vanished entirely, and that no mention or documentation for this film seem to exist, it's near impossible to conclude that this film could have existed. I think that it can only be a hoax. All these other validly missing films have left traces and posters and newspaper articles-not this one. (Yakofujimato 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC))


I do not quite think confirming that someone was born in Toronto is the same as purporting to "prove" the existence of a film that no one seems to have ever heard of until a few years ago by simply citing three sites that contain no proof, offer no verification, and are simply re-stating what is simply user created claims that surface on wikipedia, imdb, and various message boards. Books are mentioned, but no one has produced any of these "rare books" in Japan. The recent King Kong book outlining it's cinematic history mentions this 'film' but it is simply the same set of claims that have been about for a few years. The book was published in late 2005, after the rumpr of this film's existance started. Again thus far, no has offered any evidence at all that this film existed. Unless some real evidence of some sort surfaces, this claim has to be discounted as a hoax. There are no materials at all before the early 200o's? I'm sorry, I understand that people want this to be true, but if you apply Occam's razor of logic here, this just does not make sense.

1)The director totally vanished, 2)The Cast Vanished 3) The film vanished 4)All promotional materials vanished 5) All trailers have vanished. 6)All newspaper ads have vanished 7) The studio that made it has vanished 8) No reviews exist. 9) No verified materials exist 10) "Rare Books" citing this film don't exist 11) No mention of this before the early 2000s can be found 12) From 1938-2002 or so, no mention can be found of this film. Sixty Four years went by without this film being mentioned. 13) The one suppposed photo from this film is very small, but clearly shows non asian architecture even though it is supposedly taking place in medival Edo. 14)This 'film' and the rumor of it's existence only happened around the time Peter Jackson' King Kong remake was being readied for release. 15) Hoaxters never mention where they got their information about this film other than in the very suspect and vague "rare books in Japan" 16) The movie is not mentioned in the Japanese Movie database under that title/translation or variant. 17) Famous Monsters of Filmland a fan magazine for over 40 years that often mentioned rare films never mentioned this film. 18) No cast members or members of the creative team have ever surfaced for interviews about this film, even though there is one VERY dubious claimed interview that mentions it on a fan site that has existed for 2 years. This interview has yet to be found in any legitimate periodical. 19)Hoaxters use the convenient excuse that it was destroyed during WWII (???!!!-at Hiroshima I guess) 20) The supposed cast list is overly detailed for a film that is supposedly lost. It even mentions a cast credit for the Gorilla!? If the film is so obscure where did this comprehensive cast listing come from??? 21)The suspicious cast listing also includes bizzare, almost comical descriptions such as 'The Hunchback', 'Boy in Soy Sauce Shop' and 'Man in charcoal shop'. 22) Where did any of this information originate from?????

(Yakofujimato 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

  • I was reading about this at the afd, if this is a hoax, there are some questions that need to be answered. Where did the hoax originate? Was it online, or in a book? Was it the result of an error, mixing up a similar film, etc? Why did the Godzilla guy say he worked on this film? Scifi Japan is a reliable source, to dismiss it as a "fan site" is silly and shows a lack of understanding about the website, if they quote this guy as saying something, then he said it. There are some dubious things about the IMDb listing, like the credits, but that doesn't mean the film is a hoax, it just means someone added them to the film as a joke. Crazysuit 02:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Basing any arguments on weakness of the IMDb is a straw man; it's user-contributed, so I don't think anyone is buying into it as a reliable source. OTOH, SciFan Japan is a top online magazine headed by professional writers and artists with knowledge of this field [2], and editorial credibility can be assumed. Gordonofcartoon 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese sources

Based on comments here, I searched for the director's name ( 熊谷草弥 ). The JMDB (Japan's IMDB) lists a 1938 movie as simply King Kong (キング•コング). The entry is here. The kanji for the actor names matches the English for most of the actors listed on the English IMDB site; and, clicking on any of them will show that they appeared in much more than just this one movie. (Matsumoto Eizaburo, 松本栄三郎, for example, has 109 credits). The listing without the Edo comment may also make sense, as the movie poster at the first link makes it look like 江戸に現れた　is more of a tag line than part of the proper title. Neier 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. People are reading far too much into the lack of information and poor quality of information. It's looking more and more as if the information exists, but hasn't been found or properly translated. For anyone who doesn't read Japanese (and I don't) even the appalling Babelfish translation demonstrates that the cast and crew have extensive credits, generally limited to the 1930s, showing the IMDb is not telling the full story. Some of the comments seem to lack cultural perspective too: what's so weird about a soy sauce shop or a charcoal shop? Gordonofcartoon 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work, I knew the suggestion that most of the cast and crew names were made up was nonsense, all it shows is that IMDb don't list the actors' other films, because those films are lost, they are too obscure, or most likely because no one has added them to IMDb yet. Pufnstuf 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As Neier says, the JMDb also supports the likelihood that the film is just called King Kong and that the "Appears in Edo" bit was a subtitle on the poster that became mistakenly conflated. As it stands, that conclusion is original research, but that assumption might help focus the search for information. Gordonofcartoon 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information about lost Japanese films

I have found some interesting details about the large scale loss/destruction of early Japanese films;

Around 7000 films were produced in Japan in the 1920s alone. Today, the National Film Center (Tokyo) lists only around 70 titles before 1930 in their collection.[3]

Through an unfortunate collusion of circumstances, most of Japan’s silent films — which endured into the 1930s, after the West had switched exclusively to sound — were destroyed...The "Why So Few Preserved Films" link, for example, tells a fascinating story about the bombing of the Daiei company's film storage vaults during World War II. That, along with Tokyo's celluloid-unfriendly climate (high humidity and high temperatures in the summer) and the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake, conspired to destroy much of Japan’s early film history that began in the 1890s.[4]

[Pre-War Japanese cinema films] are virtually impossible to see. With one of the lowest survival rates in the world, the embryonic development of the nation's cinema is a difficult area to chart and many important works of this period including early films by important directors including Daisuke Itoh, Yasujiro Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi are now unfortunately considered to be irretrievably lost...Some were carelessly misplaced by the studios that produced them...more of the country's cinematic legacy went up in smoke either in the conflagration of the bombing raids during the Pacific War or in its immediate aftermath under the Allied Occupation where films that fell under a list of 13 forbidden subjects (the most serious offence being 'feudal loyalty') sketched up by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers' Civil Information and Education Section were banned outright. In Spring 1946, a match was put to all films deemed unnecessary to be kept for further analysis and a large chapter of cinematic history has been lost in the ashes forever.[5]

Since the movies were shot on inflammable nitrate stock, which disintegrates over time, many simply crumbled away.[6]

So, we now have the following facts;

  • 99% of Japanese films produced in the 1920s are lost.
  • Early Japanese films have one of the lowest survival rates in the world.
  • Most of Japan's silent films were destroyed, through;
    • World War II bombing
    • Deliberately burned during the Allied Occupation
    • Celluloid-unfriendly climate
    • Shot on low-quality stock which disintegrated
    • 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake (obviously this one can be discounted re King Kong Appears in Edo)

Taking this into account, it's certainly possible that King Kong Appears in Edo was destroyed. I wonder if the people claiming the film is a hoax because no posters or reviews exist would be able to find posters or reviews of the hundreds of other lost films? Maybe those are all hoaxes as well? Pufnstuf 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments have limited validity. The comments about the 1920s films have none considering that this film, if it existed was filmed very close to 1940. A bombing during WWII would not likely have destroyed every extant print of the film, though that could be possible as in the case of every know print of 'London After Midnight' being destroyed in a fire, but are you going to further suggest that every poster, still, advertisement, magazine article, newspaper article, book, contract, and every single piece of promotional material was also destroyed in this bombing? That all traces of this film were obliterated by the allied war effort. If that is your contention that it is absurd beyond belief. If it is not your contention then please explain how all of that vanished! Did the allied bombing also cause the photograph featured in the main article to transform so that the background became a clearly European background? If all the material vanished, where did this information suddenly come from in the 2000s???

Your remark "I wonder if the people claiming the film is a hoax because no posters or reviews exist would be able to find posters or reviews of the hundreds of other lost films? Maybe those are all hoaxes as well?" is a prime example of circular logic and an attempt to change the subject. We are not talking about "hundreds of missing films" we are talking not about a missing film (And incidentally, with most missing films, you can find stills, posters and reviews such as with 'London After Midnight'), but rather a story that claims that there was once a film that is now missing, as opposed to one that never really existed in the first place. There is just no evidence at all that there was. And again, that site is a fan site, staff or no staff. The fact that they post an alleged interview that claims the film existed, means next to nothing. Using the standards, and (anti)logic some here are using, we should be able to go onto Tom Cruise's wiki entry and state that he is gay without question, and that Bush was definitely behind 9/11 and that Elvis Presley is alive. Web sites say these things are true just like our Ape movie. All indicators point to this being an internet fueled hoax. There has been plenty of time for people to produce some evidence of this films existence, pointing to other websites and a book written and published after the fact that is just repeating the rumor is not evidence. The best I am hearing is convoluted arguments that it 'might' have existed, or asking us to somehow prove it didn't.

Heres some dialogue from Citizen Kane that reminds me of how incredibly absurd it is that we are even having a debate based on a total lack of evidence.


"Enemy Armada Off Jersey Coast." You know you haven't the slightest proof that this - this armada - is off the Jersey Coast.

KANE: Can you prove it isn't?


Lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can discredit the destruction of this film just because it was created in 1938, and not in the 1920's. Both were before WWII, and, thus the same problems which contributed to the demise of the earlier films would befall most films up to 1945 as well. And, I don't know if you saw it or if you are choosing to ignore it; but, the book cited in the AFD dates to 1979, which was well before the internet could have fueled this type of speculation. The English translation is cited on that website; however, I should have access to the Japanese version early next week from the library, in order to get an exact quote. Also, I'm curious on your thoughts about the linkage of the various actors to so many other movies of the era in the Japanese IMDB. Are they all involved in these hoaxes as well? Neier 11:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the previous poster could be right, the reasons listed above couldn't mean a film created in 1938 was destroyed, because the Allied forces designed special bombs that would only destroy films made before 1930, and I heard the general who ordered the mass burning of films in 1946 was a big fan of guys-in-ape-suit movies, so I doubt he would have put this one on the fire. I thought everyone knew that? Seriously though, this movie is an interesting topic, but there seems to be some desperate clutching at straws going on by the editor(s) who reckon this is a fake movie. Magiclite 05:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A "debate based on a total lack of evidence"? Er... there are two books, and three reliable websites all talking about this movie, including a quote from a member of the crew. But I guess if you're trying to prove something is a hoax it's easier to pretend those references don't exist, or make up poor excuses about why they should be ignored (and then delete them from the article). There are several sources supporting this movie, but the only "evidence" that it's a hoax are a few personal conspiracy theories dreamed up on internet forums (and we all know how reliable message board speculation is!) The only absurd thing about any of this is that people are still trying to counter the hoax "theories". They don't need to, the theories are nothing but hot air. Crazysuit 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3 Websites Make It True

So your "proof is what exactly? Specifically? Oh! I see! "3 websites" said so! Geez! There goes my agrument right out the window!

LOL!

Oh wait, Crazysuit also mentions a book! The book came out after the rumor and repeats the same thing!

I guess that it can't be so!, Not with such evidence!



Crazysuit, the contention that this film even exists is less than hot air. Again for all the rambling about "reliable websites" and books, one point remains:

There is no proof that this film existed! I have shown this time and time again, and no proof has been presented. So your "proof" is three websites, you refer to as reliable, repeat the rumor and a book published long after the rumor started mentions the rumor as well??

Amazing!


There is a total lack of evidence. What "three reliable websites" are you referring to? The ones that someone posted on the main page with simply repeat the same contention, but again offer no evidence at all? What is your criteria for what is reliable or not? Did any of these "reliable websites" do any research? On what authority are they offering this information? Again, these are fan sites.

And just where did these websites get their info from?? Maybe we should look into that, along with the newly (conveniently and suspiciously) re-discovered where the special effects guys suddenly remembers the movie 50 years later, which would make it 1988! So this interview existed for 20 years but was only discovered and posted by the fan site? Yeah!

Did they ask him why the set designer made Edo look more like Venice??

If three random websites, simple fan sites at that, simply repeat contentions mentioned elsewhere, notably here then somehow that magically constitutes "truth"?????

Ok wheres the evidence?

The totality of evidence against this film existing is pretty clear! This film existed as much as 'Alfred Hitchcock's Frankenstein meets Jay & Silent Bob 3-D' starring Fatty Arbuckle , Clark Gable and Hillary Duff exists.

Hey! I can get three websites, Wikipedia, and Imdb to mention it and that makes it an official lost film! Hey all prints were likely destroyed on 9/11 as was all the related materials! Makes about the same amount of sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

An alleged comment from the special effects man, which is supposedly from 1988, but seems to only exist on that web site which was created in 2006 is extremely suspect. You would think he would have commented about this sometime between 1938 and 1988. You would also tend to think that a 1988 interview which such a revelation would have shown up somewhere other than a fan site made in 2006!

Let's look at some of the contentions that people are using in place of evidence here:

QUOTE:"and three reliable websites all talking about this movie"


And that proves what exactly?? It proves that and three fan sites mention this, and that a book has mentioned it as well.

So what??

Talking about and repeating something does not make it suddenly true. Imagine going into court with and saying someone should be brought to trial because "3 fan sites" said that they did something!

As for the supposed recently, and very conveniently discovered quotes from the special effects man, where is the verification that the man ever made these comments? Were they translated form another article? Were they videotaped or recorded? Without some evidence to coroborate that these comments were actually made, I think we can simply discount this as being in the realm of "He said/She said". Until when and if some verification actually surfaces (and not another sci-fi fan site suddenly, and conveniently repeating newfound "facts" that will then be used by people like Crazysuit as verification") the "comments" should not even factor into any serious debate about the existence or non-existence of this film.


The sites provide ZERO verification of the the film's status. They simply repeat what has been posted on IMDB and Wikipedia, and offer no new information at all. These sites and their content related to this debate can also be factored out of the debate.

The 'King Kong' book that came out to tie in with Peter Jackson's 'King Kong' again simply repeats the whole KKAIE story and offers no further information. Because it was mentioned in a book doesn't bestow upon the story an officially proven status of irrefutable truth. I am baffled by people bringing this up and seeming to say "See! It's in a book! Therefore, it's true! Hooray!" I hate to break this to everyone but even though published works do go through a vetting process, they still often contain misinformation and mistakes. In this case, it seems the author was simply repeating the KKAIE story with out any original, or authoritative research. That being the case, the book can be totally discounted as it simply documents the same story presented on the internet.


This other book from 1979, I know nothing about and I would be happy to look at a physical copy of the book, not a purported .PDF file or claimed passages from it. I'm afraid that there will be some problem here as well. The book will probably be so rare that I will be unable to buy or borrow a copy. Any information on this book would be appreciated. If the participants here truely want to get to the bottom of this issue, then this would be the ideal starting point.


I would be glad to find out that this film existed. I just don't believe it did, and thus far I have seen no evidence to support that it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • An alleged comment from the special effects man, which is supposedly from 1988, but seems to only exist on that web site which was created in 2006 is extremely suspect. You would think he would have commented about this sometime between 1938 and 1988. You would also tend to think that a 1988 interview which such a revelation would have shown up somewhere other than a fan site made in 2006! And where have you looked for this interview? It's not like everything ever published is available on the web.
  • Did they ask them why the set designer made Edo look like Venice? If you follow this discussion, you'll see that the picture may actually come from another Japanese Kong movie. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


So the picture may be bogus? Well I do have the other picture that is claimed to be the authentic poster and in the interest full disclosure, I will post that picture. Again, there is still no evidence here that this film existed. I would like to find out where the sci-fi site claims that alleged interview was taken from. Give the popularity of Kaiju films, and the claimed rarity of this film, it would seem somewhat unlikely that a near 20 year old interview with an important figure in Kaiju would not have surfaced on the internet before 2006, however, it's not impossible. There is still no proof here, I am sorry. They cite no sources, they are not a real journalistic entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


QUOTE: "Scifi Japan is a reliable source, to dismiss it as a "fan site" is silly and shows a lack of understanding about the website, if they quote this guy as saying something, then he said it."


That is, bar none, the most idiotic comment I have heard in on this subject. Major news organizations can get major stories totally wrong. Remember the coal miners who were reported to be alive after a cave in, but all but one were dead? How about Dan Rather losing his job over the CBS news using badly forged documents to "prove" Bush was AWOL from the Air National Guard?

I'm quite confident that if these incidents occur with media outlets that have tens of thousands of employees, and one would assume a exhaustive vetting process and multiple sources for reporting something as "fact", then it's possible that your "reliable source" 'SciFiJapan' can misrepresent a story, badly translate an article, or, giving them the full benefit of the doubt and assuming they have great personal integrity, be the victim of a hoax.

To contend that they absolutely can not misrepresent something or be deceived under any circumstances, even though CBS can be, is totally illogical.

The interview, as well as the purported quotes, may be 100% accurate, but we do not know that for fact. If the website can cite their source material, that could clear this up. But I am sorry I am not accepting "if they quote this guy as saying something, then he said it".

I would be happy to contact SciFi Japan and ask them the origin of the article. Was this article/interview conducted in English? Where was it originally published? Was this article a recent and exclusive article for SciFi Japan that featured a quote taken from another source? I would imagine that anyone here who wants answers would want answers, and not cherry pick ambiguous and unverified sources just to give the impression that this film may have existed.

I'm sorry folks, I am not on a crusade to prove the film never existed, but no evidence presented here PROVES that it did. Does anyone find the fact that all of the cited "sources" were written after 2002 a trifle suspect???

In order to come even close to proving this film exists/existed, I think we should:

1) Find out SciFi Japan's sources for the the quote.

2) Get a verifiable translation of the film book that was published in Japan in the late 1970s. I know that this book does exist, and is available for sale, so a good translation would verify if the film is mentioned in this book. If it is, that would certainly, at the very least, prove that this is not an internet based rumor.

I'm not ruling out that this film existed. At this point, I think it is either:

1) A hoax

2) A really lost film, but one that has many unverified and questionable information in the main article. For example, how does the writer know that this film bombed, and how do they know about the massive publicity campaign?


If anyone here would like to work on this with me, please leave me a private message.

(Yakofujimato 20:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Major news organizations can get major stories totally wrong ... I hate to break this to everyone but even though published works do go through a vetting process, they still often contain misinformation and mistakes.
Yes, but on this point, you're making a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. We all know sources can be wrong, but the core policy is WP:V ...
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source
... where "reliable" is defined by various bibliographic criteria (e.g. generally accepted status of publication and/or author). You can gripe about the internal logic or consistency all you like, but if information is in sources generally classed as reliable, we are bound to accept it as worthy of inclusion. On the other hand, to assert that something is a hoax, when no published source has reported this theory, is original research. Gordonofcartoon 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese book in hand

I have borrowed the Japanese book 大特撮 : 日本特撮映画史 from the local library. This book is the source of the English translation mentioned in the previous AFD. This book was published in 1978, and contains the following quote on page 173:

「キング•コング」が日本の映画界に与えた影響は大きく、公開の同年早くも「和製キングコング」（松竹）なるサルマネ作品が登場し、また五年後の昭和十三年にも全勝映画から「キングコング•前後篇」が生まれている。

Roughly translating, "King Kong had a large effect on the Japanese movie industry, with one sarumane (lit. monkey imitation) movie Wasei King Kong being released by Shochiku in the same year, and five years later in 1938, the release of King Kong - Sengo hen (literally, the first/second volume) by Zenkatsu." Minor translation errors that I may have inadvertently introduced aside, this 1978 source clearly states that Zenkatsu produced a King Kong film, or series of two films, in 1938. As I mentioned above, "Appears in Edo" on the movie poster seems to be more of a tag line, and it does not appear in print in this source; but, the naming issue is another matter. I came into this discussion to provide sources that the movie existed, and, I believe that mission is now accomplished. Neier 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)