From Revelation to Destruction: Godzilla: King of the Monsters and John’s Apocalypse in Conversation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this article engaging and provocative (in the best sense of that word). While the idea of interaction between Revelation and modern movies/novels/etc is not new, this one was quite compelling. The author introduced the main theme with a broad survey of critical work, classified as either explanatory of Revelation or critical (negatively) of it. The author then introduced readers to the Godzilla film series, explaining its origins and developments, with special focus on "King of Monsters." This movie was then compared to the plot and violence of Revelation with some good insight, especially the comparison between Rev 4-5 and 12-13. Finally, conclusions were drawn, especially related to ethical engagement with violence in Revelation. The overall flow of the discussion was clear and interesting.

There was good engagement with relevant recent scholarship but some texts were not consulted, such as Alison Jack's Text Reading Texts (which views Revelation as a kind of nightmare). Discussion of the original sources of Revelation and the ancient apocalyptic literature was very limited and the author's grasp of this material was shaky as seen in footnote 1. While mention was made of A.Y. Collins work on the combat myth, this was not utilized as much as the discussion might have benefited from; Revelation's use of this mythical structure is essential background for its own monsters and the plots of movies like Godzilla.  Discussion of ancient monsters generally wasn't referred to, e.g. Jon Newton, "Blurred Boundaries and Hybrids in Revelation" (Australian Biblical Review 2023) and Heather Macumber's work.

Some statements were misleading, e.g. "Godzilla's authority, like God's in Revelation, is uncontested" (line 405). This is not true in either the movie or Revelation. I think the author means that their authority prevails in the end.

I think the main frustrating aspect of this article, at least for this reviewer. was in its ending. The author urges scholars not to ignore "modern apocalyptica" but the reasons provided for the value of reading/viewing them are very limited, so that the article did not really answer the questions raised in the Introduction, such as "If such a dialogue is possible, what are the fruits of this labour?" (line 37-38). I was hoping for a deeper, fuller discussion of this question. I'd like to see the author engage in this concluding analysis more fully and critically.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good on the whole, though there were several incomplete sentences (lines53, 91, 170), some typos (350-351) and some poor punctuation (45-46)

Author Response

Note: The attached revised articles is the final revised one with changes and/or additions based on all review comments. Below are specific responses to this reviewer’s comments.

 

Reviewer Comment 1

Comment: Use of Alison Jack’s Text Reading Texts.
Response: See Comment/Response §3 below.

 

Reviewer Comment 2

Comment: “Discussion of the original sources of Revelation and the ancient apocalyptic literature was very limited, and the author’s grasp of this material was shaky, as seen in footnote 1.”

Response: The aim of this article was not to engage directly with the ancient sources. Endnote 1 has been revised to refer works of the author of this article that explores ancient apocalyptic literature in much greater depth. See track changes in revised version.

 

Reviewer Comment 3

Comment: “Discussion of ancient monsters generally wasn’t referred to...”
Response: This article is intended as the first in a series. While discussions on ancient monsters are important and will be addressed in future work, they fall outside the scope of this article. An additional endnote has been added acknowledging the works of Newton (2023) and Macumber (2019).

 

Reviewer Comment 4

Comment: “I think the main frustrating aspect of this article, at least for this reviewer, was its ending. The author urges scholars not to ignore ‘modern apocalyptica’, but the reasons provided for the value of reading/viewing them are very limited. As a result, the article did not really answer the questions raised in the Introduction, such as ‘If such a dialogue is possible, what are the fruits of this labour?’ (lines 37–38). I was hoping for a deeper, fuller discussion of this question. I’d like to see the author engage in this concluding analysis more fully and critically.”

Response:

I believe that the initial question is addressed in the conclusion, where avenues for critical engagement are identified. Comparisons between God and Godzilla as protectors of life, as well as critical engagement with the theme of violence, are noted. In response to the reviewer’s concern, additional lines were added to the conclusion (see revised article attached).

 

Changes Based on Reviewer 1’s Suggestions

(All reworks completed with track change in revised article and attached)

• Lines 52–56:
• Lines 90–92:
• Line 170:
• Lines 405–407: Original: “As the King of the monsters, Godzilla’s authority, like God’s in Revelation, is uncontested.”
  Revised: “As the King of the monsters, Godzilla’s authority, like God’s in Revelation, is challenged by false rulers; however, viewers and readers recognise from the outset that, in the end, both the King of Monsters and the King of Kings will be triumphant.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is much to admire in the shape and intent of this article. The connections between biblical apocalypses and the monster genre, in all their many shapes and forms is well brought out, but, equally, the connection between apocalyptic literature and forms of expression in the ancient world and contemporary fictions - through cinema, literature, and gaming for example is well known. The question that this article poses - whether the Godzilla films are dialogue partners with the Book of Revelation - is also well articulated and timely, but the execution of this requires greater refinement. 

The argument lacks an underlying principle, method, or approach. What hermeneutical style or structure is at play here? Beyond a statement of dialogical partnership and the mention of recontextualization, there is not a great deal of methodological engagement on what type of reading or encounter is at play here. There is a good, if incomplete, summary of a number of other apocalyptic encounters in the first section, but there is a lack of structure around this discussion. What kind of encounter is at play here, and what is the author trying to say about this beyond the realm of influences and mimetic patterns? This needs further explanation. 

The mid-section summarizes a range of plots from Godzilla films throughout cinematic history before turning to the reimagining and recontextualization of Revelation through the films. However, the points here seem somewhat vague or perhaps even rushed. It strikes me that the fulcrum of an interesting argument is located in this material. For example: it is clear that there are common themes, images, and stories in both texts, but what exactly is Godzilla doing with them beyond repetition or mimetic inspiration. Is it trying to use these themes to speak to contemporary anxieties. Also, a common critique of apocalyptic fiction is the idea that unlike the biblical genre, which imagines a transformed world, the cinematic variety inevitably seeks a restored world, in which the world as viewers know it returns. Also in this section, the question of redemptive violence in both genres is raised, but not entertained for too long. These strike me as important points of investigation that could be developed further and make for a more sustained dialogue that the author intends. 

I would suggest a major revision that, first, explains what type of intertextual and hermeneutical relationship exists between the two genres, and, second, goes further into their thematic relationship. How does Godzilla change Revelation and what might it be doing to and with it? Does, for example, the Godzilla genre change Revelation into an immanent apocalypse. Do we still require tales of our own destruction to inspire us to more or cope with the sorrows of the world. These are all questions that would augment, add to, and enhance the original argument. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some examples of poorly worded or obtusely structured sentences that should be revisited in order to improve the readability and clarity of the piece. I have noted examples of them in my annotated copy, which I include with further general comments alongside these comments.

 

Author Response

Note 1: Spelling and grammatical error corrected using track change.

Note 2: The attached revised articles is the final revised one with changes and/or additions based on all review comments. Below are specific responses to this reviewer’s comments.

 

Comments from PDF:

Comment 1: The introduction is obtuse and does not give a sustained introduction to the piece. It is difficult to piece together the focus of the article from this intro. What is the title of the commentary in the first sentence? Why would John (I presume you mean John of Patmos?) find it strange? The link between Revelation and 'popular cultural apocalyptica' needs to be introduced more fully. What Godzilla films are being explored here? There is not a full explanation of what the dialogue is about. What sort of dialogue are you introducing?

Response 1: Most of the concerns raised in this comment are addressed in the remainder of the article. The specific commentary is referenced in the standard manner (date, page number) and listed in the bibliography, making explicit mention in the text unnecessary. For clarity, ‘John’ has been changed to ‘John of Patmos’. If required, Heading 2 (“The Apocalyptic Dialogue”) could be removed and its content incorporated into the introduction. However, the current structure intentionally provides a series of conceptual stepping stones, with each section building upon and deepening the preceding discussion.

 

Comment 2: Why is this important? There is little explanation of how dualisms play a role in apocalyptic literature.

Response 2: This article contributes to ongoing scholarly discussions on apocalyptic literature and its influence on modern apocalyptica. It was written with a specialist readership in mind—researchers familiar with the apocalyptic worldview and its inherent dualism. Given the established prominence of dualistic structures in apocalyptic literature, the author judged that further justification or explanation of this trope was unnecessary within the scope of this article.

 

Comment 3: Why is this important? Even if the characters were clearer, wouldn't they remain archetypes or characters upon which other interpretations could be superimposed or from which they could be developed?

Response 3: The reviewer’s observation is appreciated. However, addressing the question posed falls outside the intended scope of the article. This section was designed to review previous works that engage in dialogue between popular apocalyptica and Revelation, rather than to evaluate or critically analyse those works.

 

Comment 4: The point here is not at all clear. Is Nolan an apocalyptic storyteller? This might be contested.

Response 4: As with Comment 3, the purpose of this section is not to determine whether certain films or apocalyptica qualify as “apocalyptic” in a strict sense. Rather, it reviews existing scholarly work that has explored such classifications. A more detailed analysis would extend beyond the scope of this article.

 

Comment 5: Sentence is unclear – ‘While Fletcher (2016) and Davies (2022) use modern apocalyptica to clarify issues in Revelation, Clark (2010) and Pippin (2016) present more critical readings, fall on the other end of the spectrum’

Response 5: Sentence reworked to read: “While Fletcher (2016) and Davies (2022) use modern apocalyptica to illuminate aspects of Revelation, Clark (2010) and Pippin (2016) offer more critical interpretations. Both of the latter employ modern apocalyptica to challenge the worldview expressed in Revelation.”

 

Comment 6: Why is there a comma after Clark (2010)?

Response 6: Comma removed.

 

Comment 7: Bear witness to? The quotation does not make sense in this form.

Response 7: The section has been reworked and clarified using tracked changes.

 

Comment 8: Nuclear annihilation or annihilation through nuclear weapons. This is a poor standard of writing and clarity for an article submitted for publication.

Response 8: The section has been revised for clarity. The article will also undergo professional language editing prior to submission.

 

Comment 9: It strikes me that all of these examples are immanent apocalypses with little or no transcendent direction. Further, they are resolved through restoration rather than transformation, which is a key dimension of biblical apocalypticism.

Response 9: This is a valuable observation and aligns with themes that will be developed in forthcoming articles. Modern apocalyptica frequently retain many tropes of ancient apocalypses but remove their transcendental elements. This reflects the broader processes of de- and recontextualisation evident across such works. As this article’s purpose is limited to reviewing selected examples, a full engagement with this issue lies beyond its current scope.

 

Comment 10: This sentence is poorly structured.

Response 10: Original text:

“On the one hand, he sees ancient and modern apocalyptica as representing an adolescent or escapist worldview (DiTommaso, 2011b, p. 236, 2014, p. 502, 2020, p. 326), because of the reductionistic dualism view expressed in them. In turn, this leads to ‘places responsibility for solving’ worldly problems ‘elsewhere: God, an undefined force of nature, a divinized humanity, a superhuman messiah-figure, an alien race, or an artificial intelligence’ (DiTommaso 2014, p. 502).”

 

Revised to:

“On the one hand, he regards ancient and modern apocalyptica as expressing an adolescent or escapist worldview (DiTommaso, 2011b, p. 236; 2014, p. 502; 2020, p. 326), owing to the reductionist dualism evident within them. This, in turn, ‘places responsibility for solving’ worldly problems ‘elsewhere: God, an undefined force of nature, a divinized humanity, a superhuman messiah-figure, an alien race, or an artificial intelligence’ (DiTommaso, 2014, p. 502).”

 

Comments 11 & 12 (Notes): Why are these issues addressed here? I think it would be worth integrating this into the text also.

Response 11 & 12: Endnote 1 has been revised. While these issues are indeed important, they are best developed in a separate article offering a more detailed review of the relevant works. As noted, this article’s aim is not to provide a comprehensive survey but to outline the main lines of argument present in the literature comparing Revelation with modern apocalyptica. If required, these comments could be incorporated into the main text, though it is the author’s considered judgement that such integration is unnecessary for the current scope.

 

Additional Reviewer Comments and Suggestions

Comment 1: The question that this article poses—whether the Godzilla films are dialogue partners with the Book of Revelation—is also well articulated and timely, but the execution of this requires greater refinement.

Response 1: The conclusion has been expanded with an additional section. The central question is now addressed more explicitly, with clearer identification of avenues for critical engagement. Comparisons between God and Godzilla as protectors of life, alongside critical reflections on violence, are highlighted. These additions directly respond to the reviewer’s concern (see revised article attached).

 

Comment 2: The argument lacks an underlying principle, method, or approach. What hermeneutical style or structure is at play here? Beyond a statement of dialogical partnership and the mention of recontextualization, there is not a great deal of methodological engagement on what type of reading or encounter is at play here. There is a good, if incomplete, summary of a number of other apocalyptic encounters in the first section, but there is a lack of structure around this discussion. What kind of encounter is at play here, and what is the author trying to say about this beyond the realm of influences and mimetic patterns? This needs further explanation.

Response 2: A clarifying sentence on methodology has been added. Furthermore, the end of §2 now outlines the approach taken to contextualise the discussion of Godzilla and Revelation. While this article is not intended as a methodological study, it establishes a foundation for such engagement in future work.

 

Comment 3: The mid-section summarises a range of plots from Godzilla films throughout cinematic history before turning to the reimagining and recontextualisation of Revelation through the films. However, the points here seem somewhat vague or perhaps even rushed....

Response 3: The reviewer is correct that key themes, such as redemptive violence, emerge in this section. However, the article’s main objective is to explore whether the Godzilla reboot films can serve as dialogue partners with Revelation. Themes such as (redemptive) violence and related motifs will be developed in subsequent studies within this project. The mid-section may appear concise due to the extensive history and complexity of the Godzilla franchise. Its purpose is to demonstrate how Godzilla, like Revelation, has undergone processes of de- and recontextualisation—from a symbol of nuclear destruction to an ecological protector.

 

Comment 4: I would suggest a major revision that, first, explains what type of intertextual and hermeneutical relationship exists between the two genres, and, second, goes further into their thematic relationship.

Response 4: While such a substantial revision would certainly be valuable, it is the author’s assessment that this would move beyond the article’s intended scope. Future contributions in this project will focus specifically on methodological and hermeneutical dimensions, at which point these insightful suggestions will be incorporated and developed further.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper demonstrates a unique conceptual approach by establishing an interdisciplinary dialogue between pop culture (film) and classical religious texts, presenting academic innovation. The author demonstrates a profound understanding of existing research, while also exhibiting a deep comprehension of both the film and the theological interpretative tradition of Revelation. However, I still have some suggestions for the author to consider:

First, the core issue of the paper is the dialogue between Godzilla: King of the Monsters (hereafter referred to as Godzilla) and the Book of Revelation. The author attempts to introduce Godzilla into the discussion of Revelation. However, the paper does not fully achieve the objective stated in the introduction. Although some parts do discuss the relationship between Godzilla and Revelation, these discussions are brief and more comparative rather than offering an in-depth dialogue. A significant portion of the paper focuses on summarizing previous research and introducing the plot of Godzilla. While these sections provide helpful background, they do not adequately support the central argument. It is clear that the paper has not fully achieved its initial goal, but there is considerable room for revision. I suggest the author refocus the research on two aspects: first, the depiction of “revelation” in the film, and second, exploring its dialogue with the Book of Revelation. In short, I recommend revising the introduction to clearly define the research question. Additionally, the fourth section should be improved to emphasize the “dialogue” between the film and Revelation. If this cannot be fully achieved, at least the comparative analysis should be deepened.

Second, the author’s review is very comprehensive, summarizing a large number of scholars’ viewpoints. However, the discussion of the research gap is somewhat vague. I suggest the author add a section in the review that clearly points out the shortcomings of previous studies and, based on this, presents the innovative aspects of this research to highlight its uniqueness.

Third, in the conclusion, while the author mentions that Godzilla: King of the Monsters provides an avenue for engaging with Revelation and specifies some viewpoints, in my opinion, this section still primarily remains at a neutral comparative level. Specifically, I suggest that the author explicitly point out which avenue has been presented and further elaborate on how the avenue impacts our understanding of the Book of Revelation.

Author Response

General Feedback on Comments (Reviewer’s Comments 1–3: First, Second, and Third Suggestions)

The introduction has been revised to clarify both the focus and the limitations of the article. Additional explanations have also been incorporated at the end of Section 2. Changes made in response to other reviewers’ feedback (marked with track changes) further address several of the issues raised by this reviewer.

I am deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive nature of this review. The comments provided are immensely valuable and will contribute greatly to the ongoing development of this broader research project. As this article represents the first in a planned series focusing on Revelation, I particularly wish to express my sincere appreciation to this reviewer for the care, clarity, and thoughtfulness demonstrated in their feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed the comments and undertaken a substantive revision of the text. The piece in general, I hope, will be developed further in future research. The article uncovers a range of ways through which the Godzilla genre unpacks and expands apocalyptic themes into popular culture. I hope that the hermeneutical and thematic questions that emerge in this article will be developed further in future work.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author’s response. I have no further comments.