Which Alligator the new Godzilla came from.

You know what guys, it's not crazy to assume the OP is accurate. Look at Godzilla's face  scale pattern, specifically on his legs. And let's not forget the hands... They look very crocodilian in nature. We know Godzilla will have a flashback scene to 1954.. Perhaps it explains Godzilla's origin in a new way - where he IS a mutated croc. Croca have small, "spike like" protrusions along their back, which could mutate and deform to create Godzilla's iconic back plates. The thing is Godzilla is a force of nature, and certain aspects can not be explained scientifically. But considering Godzilla's had a few different origins throughout his film career it's not out of the question that this one is a mutation of either an existing Alligator or a hidden, unknown species. But the new design is heavily inspires by Alligators, no denying that. 

I don't understand how people are thorwing around the word realistic and unrealistic.  It's a movie and its allowed to stretch the boundries of realism.  No one should be bashed for coming up with theories on how Godzilla came to be because they are "unrealistic" because any theory you come up with is a made up story also.  Personally, I like the idea that Godzilla is an acient creature that was awoken and then slightly mutated by the nuclear exposure.  I feel like that explains his nuclear breath best.

Godzilla is a mutated godzillasaurus! HAVE YOU WATCHED godzilla vs KG and Gojira?

everyone knows that he is a dinosaur!

I hope he isn't a dinosaur in 2014. The idea of it is, and always has been, just ludicrously absurd. A creature staying alive that many millions of years, breeding without notice, but always one individual at a time? or a single ancient organism that is just really old? Evolving to not only survive changes in temperature but figuring out how to a breath a different air?

And then gets mutated by nuclear testing anyway?

Like having an animal (any animal) get mutated into a giant monster by a radioactive event is a stretch where you have to engage your willing suspension of disbelief in and of itself, no matter what kind of creature it is.

To say that the animal in question which gets mutated ALSO happens to be a dinosaur that somehow has survived unnoticed during the entire history of man adds a second layer of unnecessary and frankly even more preposterous willing suspension of disbelief.

Godzilla has had multiple origin stories over the years, with the dinosaur version sadly being the most common. If they explain Godzilla's origins in 2014 (which I'd be fine if they don't) I hope they either do a mutation of a modern animal, or invent an entirely new theory, or really anything but try and cram 'He's a mutated dinosaur' down our throats again. 

The beautiful thing about the original film is that it was clear he was some sort ancient creature or evolved dinosaur, but there is no detail to it. It's very plush. The absurdities of the origin are acceptable because it's so vague and the specifics are left out, leaving behind a void of horror for the imagination.

I would prefer a vague, dinosaur-esque origin because it's more inherit to the monster's origins-- I think it still works today because of how loose it is. There's a certain creepiness about where Godzilla specifically came from simply because his background is so muddled.

Dr. Yamane in the film is more concerned about how Godzilla survived such exposure to radioactivity than he is anything else-- Suggesting perhaps this creature is some evolved decendant (which he explicitly theorizes) of the dinosaurs that had developed some sort of immunity to radiation. Did he? Was he something entirely different before the bombs woke him? Did his evolution provide some sort of imperviousness to radioactivity? We'll never know. It's that same creepy, mysteriousness behind Godzilla that helps make him believable and elevates his status to something above science to the untrained. It's also more interesting than simply saying he was mutated from a dinosaur or a modern animal. I hope Edwards factors that in and keeps Godzilla's origins fairly loose.

ok i understand now, it is true that in gojira he is not stated as a mutation, he is said to be a ancient creature or as Dr Yamane says a cross between dinosaur and marine reptile that was not only woken up by the h-bomb tests but scared by the tests as well, the bombs making him radioactive, giving him a monstrous weapon and painfully distirbing his peaceful slumber. his extact origin was vague and that was a good thing as well.

I do agree they should keep his origins vague, regardless of what they decide they should be. I think part of the POINT of Godzilla is the mystery of the creature; an element of nature that eludes man's understanding. 

Also, as far as the dinosaur origins go, the 1954 film at least gets a partial pass that some of the other films do not enjoy. Our understanding of dinosaurs and geologic time was very uninformed back then. Most of our modern understanding of dinosaurs and paleontology did not develop until the 1960's.

At the time, few countries had paleontology programs, and it was not an incredibly popular science even in the countries which did have programs. One can hardly criticize the filmmakers for not being up to date on the latest breakthroughs in the field. Their understanding of dinosaurs may have been 20-30 years or more out of date with the scientific community, who themselves had a fairly primitive understanding. 

Anyone filmmakers in the 1970's or later though really just should have known better. I imagine though they were slightly hand-tied due to the assertions made in the 1954 film. At least that's how I rationalize it to myself. I'd rather believe that, than believe the director is willing to insult our intelligence just because it's a 'monster movie'.

Well, a few things: Tokusatsu got "absurd" really quick by the 1960s, but it wisely embraced the absurdities which helped it become so popular and ultimately defined the entire style. Absurd doesn't mean "bad", it's simply a choice and direction most producers and filmmakers went with at the time. And ultimately it worked. Thus things like Baragon and Titanosaurus became status quo instead of deliberately insulting. In the face of aliens, super-military weapons and psuedo-science they were comparitively easier to buy.

The Heisei series still has the same level of absurdity, it just has a harder time balancing it with the tone they were going for. In the case of Godzillasaurus, (which was only brought to the Godzilla mythos in 1991 and should not be considered the origin of the original monster -- sadly it is) we're met with an extension of theories from the original movie that are now overexplained with a laundry list of screenplay issues. In that movie specifically, I can buy the Godzillasaurus because of the surrounding elements that are also involved. Ironically, alot of those elements (time travel) are so full of flaws that it makes the dinosaur even easier to swallow.

Yeah I basically agree with most of that. Just because a movie is absurd doesn't mean it is bad. It's even part of the appeal of many popular modern TV/Movie franchises like Dr. Who or The Expendables.

It may just be a pet peeve of mine, but the dinosaur component of Godzilla is just a particular absurdity that has always ruffled my feathers. I'm less willing to forgive it than others.

That being said, I grew up on Showa era Godzilla and always enjoyed it. I actually didn't even know very much about the Heisei films until AFTER Godzilla 1998/Godzilla 2000 came out. After those movies I started seeing more Godzilla VHS/DVD's at in the states, and seeing more Godzilla movies on TV, like Godzilla vs Biollante and Godzilla 1985. So my whole introduction and passion for Godzilla was almost entirely started by Showa movies. As a result, I would be lying if I said I haven't embraced their silliness to a degree.

Nowadays, I do prefer the more serious Godzilla films. But I still appreciate the old school Showa cheesiness.