new vs old

The new version Versus the older versions. Depends on which ones. There are three Godzilla`s which i know the new 2014 goji CANNOT take down.

Meltdown Godzilla

GMK Godzilla

Final Wars Godzilla.

I agree on meltdown (cause he is my favorite and he would eventually blow up if he didn't control it) but he could probably go hand to hand with GMK and FINAL WARS has a a speed add....but ya your three choices make sense 

With what we know about this 1 so far there's no way to say.

We know he will be bigger and have some type of atomic breath, but that is all. This beath could be insanely powerful, or the weakest version so far. His invulnerabliltiy could be taken away or cippled to the point any godzilla could beat him. 

Until I see the movie, or at least least exactly what he can do I, and no1 except people working on the film for that matter, can make a guess that holds any water.

durp I agree with ya 100% but if the cripple or take away his powers there will be a lot of outrage

I'm pretty sure Godzilla 2000 would put up a pretty good fight, look what he did to Orga.

Ya but the issue is that 2000 saw a chance to kill a super regenerating monster and he took it and got lucky...but he does have some good skills like the megaguirus dorsal spine arm slice and the body slam

It's impossible to say at this point. We know so little about this Godzilla. We know he's the largest there will be 'radioactive elements' to this new Godzilla. This doesn't even necesarrily mean radioactive breath.

But it's a key trait...without it he is just....not him...and the whole radioactive element is important to...I understand it's new and we don't want it to be monotonous but don't kill off every key element

I think we should wait until the movie's release before we start comparing Godzillas. We have yet to see Goji 14's full design yet. Nor have we seen him battle any kaiju.

I see your point but I just wanted to see what people thought about goji14 compared to the others

They could cripple him and make him weak all they want as long as the director is sure to add the tag "realism" as much as possible to the movie.

Because of "Realism" that was promised in dark knight rises no one complained about Bane, even though, besides breaking batmans's back he really could have been made into a whole new character and most people wouldn't have noticed a difference. If you take the realism away though, people would have been outraged bane wasn't all that big, didn't look almost anything like himself, and didn't take any type of steroid to increase his strength, but because of realism people overlooked it. The same could be done with Godzilla

Say that to zilla...Tristan tried to make him realistic and what did we get?a whole new monster basically

Tristar never added the tagline of a realistic godzilla to the 98 film. It was simply an american take on the monster. Had they tried and advertised that the movie would be a more realistic approach I doubt they would have received the slack they got from the movie.

The fans still would have went crazy...you can't strip a character of all his powers to make him real...that just makes it worse...like Spiderman not being able to shoot web to make the movie real or superman not being able to fly..(HEADLINES: SUPERMAN TAKES TAXI TO LEXCORP!!) 

@DURP004 Just adding the tag of realism doesn't make it OK to take what is essentialy a completely different character and slap the name of an old (and, ususally, popular) character on it. Contrary to what Hollywood producers (and video game designers, and basically everything else) these days seem to believe, realism doesn't make everything better. In fact, in some cases, it just makes things worse- if a character can't be remade realistically without taking away some of their key traits (like Godzilla's durability and atomic breath, or Bane's superhuman strength), they shouldn't be remade realistically at all. Also, in your example of Bane from TDKR, I don't know what planet you've been living on, but EVERYONE (or at least Batman fans) complained about Bane, as they should have (although I thought the movie was overall a lot better than most people give it credit for).

Linkzilla I agree with you 100%! But the dark knight bane isn't to bad...I love his voice...but without his venom it's just not him

There is no way every1 complained about Bane as the actor Tom Hardy was even complimented on his role by many critics. If there were outcries they were completely silenced by the overwhelming general favor to the movie. Not to say I like TDKR as I found it the weakest batman movie of that trilogy and not a very good movie overall, but I'm in the minority with that I can promise you.

Bane was just an example the point is if realism is included the general audience will look past minor faults with the excuse, "well this made it more realistic" While I'm 100% against a realistic take on the actual monsters and have been ever since that was announced for this movie I'm once again not in the majority. I was just saying it's VERY possible things that made Godzilla himself ex: radioactive breath, invulnerability could all be changed if it better suits the realistic take on the monsters and what the movie is going for. I'm not saying taken away, however this Godzilla may well be harmed by conventional weapons, not to the point of death mind you but there could be visible injuries from it. The radioactive breath could be only used in moderation, ect.