[looney-bin]

The problem with comparing two giant beats with questionable science behind them is that in each of their franchises, sometimes between films (or in films!) of the same franchise, they have different physics that apparently make the whole thing possible. It was ridiculous back in the fifties, but even worse now since film-makers obviously make an attempt at realism, but they do this by discussing an interesting few points (often by having a scientist character shoot down an infeasible idea from another character) while completely ignoring all the rest. It's anyone's guess as to whether this is a better, worse or more infuriating situation than before, but it causes problems in versus comparisons when considering two monsters meeting each other, when the lack of science of one would give it an unfair advantage, while the "science" of the other would cause the immediate death of his opponent from natural causes.

Either let them each subsist on their own unique movie physics, in which one therefore wins before any real contest needs to occur, or establish some sort of consistency, in which both are quickly reduced to a bloody pulp of their own accord.

The entire exercise, and all its possible solutions, are more futile than usual.

I bet you're a riot at parties.