ugh, i hate "movie entity vs. movie entity" slogs. It basically amounts to who's imaginary friend is better. The problem with fiction is there is no universal set of rules, so one side can just keep making their guy more powerful than the other. It's especially boring when the answer is painfully obvious (as evidenced by the comments here).
This kind of "debate" is no different than "which weapon is better". Movie monster/characters/vehicles, like real world weapons, are designed to work within the context they were created in. Gypsy Danger was created in a universe where we were attacked by giant monsters and created solution in the form of giant mechs. Pacific Rim is about how we felt small and powerless but ultimately were able to overcome the threat. Godzilla is not meant to be overcome by man. He is meant to be an unstopable power in which mankind can only cower in fear.
This is like a previous thread pitting Godzilla against King Kong. Again, both were designed to work in their original context but when you mash the two together outside of said context, it just doesn't work. Godzilla is meant to be indestructable whereas Kong was, despite his size and strength, a fully mortal animal. Godzilla is a force of nature, representing the horrors and destruction of atomic weapons as well as judgement on man. Kong was a tragic figure, symbolizing mankind's unfailing ability to demonize and destroy what he doesn't understand. He also represents problems with trying to take a wild animal out of the wild. They both work beautifully in their own worlds; trying to pit them against each other as is (instead of changing them like in Godzilla vs. King Kong) is pointless because it means taking two completely different beings from two completely different worlds out of their comfort zones.
Trying to pit the two together is like trying to pit a knight against a samurai. Both worked very well in their own context, but take them out of that context and they'll be at a disadvantage against one another. The Knight would have a speed disadvantage because he was used to fighting other slower opponants. the Samurai would have an armor disadvantage because his weapons were designed to attack lightly armored opponants, not enemies wearing full plate armor.
TL;DR: Stuf like is pointless, especially when the differences are so staggeringly different as to the render the "debate" over before it even began. Whay can't we enjoy each in their own world? Why do we have to pit them against each other (at least without rewriting their natures)? I have learned that this kind of thing often leads to the denigration of the other, despite the fact that they were incredible in their original context. I just find this all pointless and irellevant, in the end answering absolutely nothing.
sorry for the rant.
