Here you will find info on each of the monsters from the series. It's all pretty standard, dimensions, appearances, history, origin, etc.. The monsters are listed based on the series of Godzilla films that they first appeared, so Moguera will be among the VS series monsters despite first appearing in 1957, but with the year of the original appearance of the monster beside them. Why do it that way? I don't know, I just thought it looked neat?

The following stats are listed for each entry, where applicable:
G-Series Apperances: Each film in the Godzilla series the monster has appeared in (in all incarnations) is listed by number of the film in the series.

Image: I use screencaps I take myself from the various digital copies of the films I have. I only use film screencaps for these images, not promotional photos. It isn't really all that impotant, but I simply insist on representing the monsters how they're actually seen in the films themselves.

Timeline Icons: Directly under the image are little icons I made for each of the timelines depicted in the 32 Godzilla films. Clicking one will bring you to the page for that timeline (if I've started it, of course).

First Appearance: The first appearance of the particular version of the monster in question. I include this because sometimes it's not part of the Godzilla series. It usually is, but not always.

Subtitle: There's this kind of bizarre fascination in Japan where all of the monsters need flash epithets. I don't quite see the point, but it's a neat and fun practice so I wanted to put that here to make my bios have a little more flavor. A lot of monsters have more than one of these, and in that case I'll just pick the one that I think is the most appropriate. This can mean the one most contemporary to the original appearance, one that differentiates this specific version of the character, or just the one I like the most.

Height, Length, and Wingspan: Self explanatory. These are always given in meters. Where there is conflicting information about these, I use my own judgement. Sometimes information will be logically inconsistent - such as the VS-2/3 Godzilla having a tail that's 32m longer than it was in the 80's, but the overall length is given as the same - and I do some basic math to fix that. Other times I just have to figure stuff out on my own completely, although this isn't offten.

Weight: Weights are always given in metric, because... well, duh. Monster weights are almost always given in metric tons, but I don't feel the need to specify that they're metric tons in the bios because... why would I mix imperial and metric units in a franchise that always gives the stats of its monsters in metric?

Species: "Species" is a complicated concept in biology, and the lines on what defines a species in real life are often very fuzzy. For our purposes, if I have a species name available, that's great but if not, I'll keep it at the genus level, because that's as specific as we'll ever need to be for these kinds of movies anwyas. Obviously, because we're dealing with monstsers, the majority of them will not be ordinary organisms and instead be mutants or cyborgs or some other kind of thing. Some of them aren't even lifeforms at all, but... well, that's a conversation for a different page if I ever get around to it. Expect most species entries to read [source of anomalous properties] [vaguely defined clade based on common name]. Sometimes the original genus of the monsters before their mutation is known, most of the time it's not.

There are two instances where I have editorialized and made my own, to a degree: Anguillosaurus is a terrible butchering of Ankylosaurus used in a dub, but since Anguirus is really... really obviously not an Ankylosaurus, I've co-opted the name for use here. The other is for Rodan, which I'm calling Pteradon, which is almost the same as Pteranodon (which Rodan is usually said to be... even though that's... obviously not possible and demonstrably false), except the "no" has been dropped from it, giving us a name that both implies the animal does have teeth ("pteranodon" means, roughly, "toothless wing"), and directly shortens to Radon, the monster's Japanese name.

Origin: Since the cause of the monster becoming what it is is covered under species, this means where the monster was either first born/created (if known), or first discovered, or whatever their earliest known whereabouts are.

Faction: There was a kinda trend in fan art at the end of the aughts breaking down monsters into factions based on those from the video game Godzilla: Unleashed. This was cute and neat and I liked it, so I've done something similar here. Where a monster is acting on behalf of a distinct faction, such as political or military group or specific race, I'll use that. Where a monster simply acts of its own volition, I'll break it down based on the agendas from the original edition of Monsterpocalypse, which I'll summarize below:

Radical - These are your Earth Defender equivalents in Unleashed terms. These monsters are on the side of Earth first before anything else, meaning they hate civilization and alien invaders in somewhat equal measure. Emphasis on "somewhat," as some may be far more lenient with humanity than others, but they all have a breaking point, even Mothra. On the D&D alignment chart, this is roughly equivalent to Chaotic Good.

Protector - Equivalent to the GDF of Unleashed. These are fully on the side of protecting the existing human civilization against all threats, without being affiliated with any particular faction. On the D&D alignment chart, this is roughly equivalent to Lawful Good.

Arbiter - In Monsterpocalypse this agenda is referred to as "collaborators," which makes since in that context because they are meant to be able to cooperate with figures from both protector and invader agendas. That's a terrible name for these purposes, though, so I'm going with this instead. Of the top of my head I'm not sure if any monsters from the films actually count as this (Sachiel would if I was going to cover the shorts, though). This is the D&D equivalent of Lawful Neutral, basically caring only about the upholding of order over all other things. Zoffy from Shin Ultraman is this.

Invader - Territorial monsters looking to expand, the Alien faction of Unleashed. Most monsters of this type will be affiliated with a specific alien race, but there's at least one exception. In D&D terms this is equal to Lawful Evil.

Fiend - Pure evil creatures that are specifically looking to cause grief. The D&D equivalent is Chaotic Evil.

Destroyer - Monsters who's only goal is to destroy things, like the Mutants from Unleashed. The D&D equivalent is Chaotic Neutral.

Neutral - Also called "unaligned" in 4th and 5th editions, these are true neutral creatures that have no agenda aside from their own survival.

It is possible that some monsters could also be described as Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, although that would mean judging the motivations of non-human and sometimes totally alien monsters purely by human morality, which seems a little silly. If while making these bios, I find a monster that fits those descriptions, I'll maybe come up with a catchy name for them, but off the top of my head I don't think any would fit.

Abilities: The total scope of any given monsters abilities are hard to define, and I don't garauntee my criteria are consistent or objective. All named battle techniques get tossed in, of course, as does flight, which is a very specialized thing. Swimming is something you can be bad at but for Earthlings, at least, simply existing in water isn't really much of a feat. Physical techniques usually won't get listed unless it's some kind of special or signature move, like the kangaroo kick or w/e. Essentially, try to think of the list of abilities like pokemon moves. I may make amends to the criteria of how to list this stuff later on, but for now that's good enough.

History: These are aiming to be short and generalized, if you want the full story in exacting details, that's what the timeline pages are for. While the timeline pages only include information directly from or relevant to the films, however, if there is some kind of bonus information from an external source that I think is cool or fleshes out the character's history in a meaningful way, I'll include it in here.

1954 GODZILLA
1955 ANGUIRUS
1933 KONG
1962 GIANT OCTOPUS
1961 MOTHRA
1956 RODAN
1964 GHIDORAH
1966 EBIRAH
1966 GIANT CONDOR
1967 KAMACURAS
1967 KUMONGA
1958 VARAN
1963 MANDA
1965 BARAGON
1967 GOROSAURUS

1969 GABARA
1971 HEDORAH
1972 GIGAN
1973 JET JAGUAR
1973 MEGALON
1974 MECHAGODZILLA
1974 KING SHISA
1975 TITANOSAURUS

1984 SHOCKIRUS
1989 BIOLLANTE
1991 GODZILLASAURUS
1991 DORAT
1991 MECHA-KING GHIDORAH
1992 BATTRA
1957 MOGUERA
1994 SPACEGODZILLA
1994 FAIRY MOTHRA
1995 DESTROYAH

1999 MILLENNIAN
1999 ORGA
1956 MEGANULON
2000 MEGAGUIRUS
1970 KAMOEBAS
1998 ZILLA

2016 5TH FORM
1964 DOGORA
1997 DAGAHRA
2017-2018 SERVUMS

Q: Where are Minilla and Godzilla Junior?
A: Those are Godzillas, so they're covered under the entry for Godzilla. I can't think of any reason why I should be treating them as distinct monsters when they're just individuals of the Godzilla species.

Q: Why is Godzilla's 5th form a different monster, then?
A: The origins behind the 5th form aren't clear, but we know based on this wonderful thing called the language of film that it in some way involes Goro Maki. This makes the monsters a hybrid between Goro and Godzilla, and if that makes Biollante a distinct monster, it should make the 5th forms distinct too. Additionally, rather than Godzilla himself mutating into the new form, these 5th form creatures are generated by and climb out of Godzilla's tail, meaning that rather than BEING Godzilla, it's more accurate to say they were BIRTHED from Godzilla.

Q: Well why don't you count the two Servum species as different monsters then?
A: I do, actually! I've just put them both on the same page for convenience reasons, but they're treated seperately.

Q: What about "Ghidorah?" I don't see King and Keizer Ghidorah as different entries, why?
A: It's the same as Godzilla. Now, this is a more nuanced topic, and I've gone back and forth on it for some time, but ultimately my reasoning is this: there are 6 distinct prefixes given to the Ghidorahs: King, Mecha, Death, Cretaceous, Kaiser, and... none. "King" has always been something of a formal designation, as he is repeatedly called simply "Ghidorah" by marketing, characters in the films, and in one case even the English title of the entire film itself. More casual fans conflate all of these iterations, regardless of how different they are. In two notable cases, when bringing a 1996 Bandai Death Ghidorah toy home from G-Fest, the X-Ray machine guy was looking through my bag and saw it and nerdgasmed about it being Ghidorah. He clearly had never seen that particular Ghidorah or movie, but he instantly recognized the monster despite the design being very different. Ghidorah is, I remind you, extremely well known and saturated in pop culture, and not just hyper nerd shit like, say, Moguera. The other is James Rolf's "Godzillathon" video series, where, when he covers Final Wars, simply addresses the monster as "Ghidorah." So, culturally, there is a case to be made that they're the same monster.

From a lore perspective, Death Ghidorah's only known direct origin is an old word of god claiming that he is King Ghidorah's son. That immediately tells you that the King/Death moniker is an individual name, like Minilla or Mothra Leo, and not an indication of it being a different type of creature altogether. Although they are very different, Death is not the only four-legged Ghidorah, and remember that these monsters are aliens, and we can't take any part of their biology for granted, especially in a universe with magic insects and time travel where radiation makes dinosaurs shoot lasers. Cretaceous Ghidorah is even more explicit because he is, in his film, intended to be simply the younger version of King Ghidorah, not a separate individual at all. Of course we do eventually discover that the modern Ghidorah was actually a second one born from his regenerating tail, but the point stands. GMK tells us that Ghidorah is actually Orochi, and because GMK is in the 1954 continuity family, that makes Orochi part space monster, something Orochi, the Eight Headed Dragon actually flirted with, and tells us the creatures can wildly fluctuate not just in name, but in number of legs and even heads. The final nail in the coffin is that while the anime Ghidorah is refferred to in marketing as "King Ghidorah," the monster is never called that in the film. The implication of this is obvious; this isn't just any Ghidorah, this is THE Ghidorah, the REAL one, the Outer God that defines the concept of a Ghidorah which all inhabitants of this universe are just avatars of. Because there is a 54 year precedent for the main version being "King" as opposed to Death or Kaiser or w/e, people want to lump him in with the others... but that's not what the film itself is actually saying. The intention is very clear, and so following from that we have to accept that Kaiser Ghidorah is no more different a monster than King Ghidorah than King Kong is to Little Kong, or Godzilla is to Minilla, or Mothra is to Mothra Leo.

Q: So why is Mecha-King Ghidorah counted separately? Or Battra for that matter, isn't Battra just a black Mothra?
A: My criteria for what constitutes a "new monster" is based on the world the films take place in. What is a monster, and where do they come from? A monster is a fictional entity, creature, robot, etc., and most of the time - particularly in these movies - they are the result of an abnormal process happening to transform something natural into something monstrous. Godzillasaurus is a monster because it's not a real species of dinosaur, however, in the world of the films, it is, Godzillasaurus is a real animal in these movies in the same way Tyrannosaurus is to us. Godzilla, then, is a monster created by radioactive materials, a mutation of that animal into something altogether different. So, we consider Kamoebas to be a monster, but not the matamata turtle, Ganime but not the rock crab, Gezora but not a cuttlefish. Other methods of creating monsters aside from mutation include supernatural causes, genetic engineering, and cybernetic augmentation. While MKG and Battra are just modified versions of Ghidorah and Mothra, those modifications are important. It's why I'm counting the 5th form as a distinct monster, because something changed. MKG and Battra do not represent individual variation. Instead, MKG went through a process similar to Gigan (which does mean that if we ever see an organic Gigan in the series, I will count it as a new monster), and Battra was changed by the supernatural mana/Gaia/whatever itself directly against its will, and didn't simply end up like that because a Mothra larva cocooned itself around a punk concert or something.

Q: What about Godzilla Eath and Filius, then?
A: I don't really have a good answer for that, actually! I would say that this is outside of the 1954 continuity family, so it isn't really contingent on the definitions of the monsters from previous films, but... every other monster besides Godzilla is the same as its 1954 family counterpart. So what gives? I... don't know. The best I can tell you is that Biollante in the prequel novels is hypothesized to be a subspecies of Godzilla, and since Earth is a hybrid created by HGT of plants and animals, that would make Earth a type of individual variation of Biollante, rather than a Godzilla. However... it's very difficult to ignore the fact that, he's, y'know, Godzilla? So it's not a good answer, but it being a new continuity family is the best I've got, because calling him Biollante doesn't really work based on the film itself, and I'm not going to combine the Godzilla and Biollante pages because that would undo all of the other precedents.

Q: Some of these entries don't use the official Toho English spellings. Why?
A: Because those official spellings are wrong. It is one thing to have a made-up nonsense word, but it is quite another to mispell "Shisa," which is a pre-existing creature from Okinawan mythology and not something Toho invented wholecloth on their own. Other names I have fixed spelling errors for are "Destroyah," which was originally meant to be and is based off of "Destroyer" so "Destoroyah" is objectively wrong, and "Kaiser Ghidorah" because, again, "Kaiser" is a real word that already exists. You wouldn't spell "King Ghidorah" "Keeng Ghidorah," would you? No, so I don't do that here either.

Q: But what about Anguirus and Meganulon? Aren't those based on real animals?
A: Yes! The names come from Ankylosaurus and Meganeura in particular, a Cretaceous dinosaur and Carboniferous insect, respectively. However, while this is the inspiration for the names, you'll notice that - while they may be related - the Toho monsters are not actually of those genera. As such, regardless of their pre-human ghost lineages, I still regard these creatures as fictional, because they... y'know, are? So calling Anguirus "Angylus" wouldn't really make any sense when Toho already gave us their made up name for the made up creature. I will take this where I can get it, as Titanosaurus, the monster, actually shares a name with a real genus of dinosaur, which is really dumb and I hate it. Also remember that evolution is a thing, so aside from the Millennium Meganulon, none of these modern day monsters are any type of prehistoric animal that actually lived in real history, they are new creatures altogether, and even then the Millennium Megnulons were given not one, but two distinct species names (apparently it was something like an Anomalocaris situation) in the film, so even when they are actually from the Carboniferous, they are still not any of the three known species of Meganeura.