Talk:EP033: Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
In A Manica (talk | contribs) (→supposed trivia.: new section) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:Ataro|Ataro]] 07:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | [[User:Ataro|Ataro]] 07:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::: if ''you'' actually bothered to read instead of jumping the gun and looking illiterate, you would have realized that I clearly said "Although Ponyta cannot have Flame body in the games". Pokemon in the anime have always been able to bend the rules in this way and since I was mentioning that it was probably only a ''concept'' at the time doesn't mean they would have written it down "we have already given Ponyta a quality very similar to flame body - make it '''top priority''' to keep this consistent when we ''possibly'' introduce something like this to future games". This site ''loves'' assumptions (when made up by their own staff of coarse), just like Ash's/animes Ho-oh is stated to be both the gold colored one and the normal colored one is a perfect example of how I believe that something like this is also proof of future thoughts into the series. So why "this different colored Ho-oh points towards future Pokémon and growth of the series" (even so far as a specific Pokémon that apparently changes colors) and "this example of a pokemon quality (i.e. ability and specifically one which happens to act a lot like Flame Body) points towards a future mechanic" is soooo different that I have to be shunned eludes me -- [[User:D558|D558]] 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | :::: if ''you'' actually bothered to read instead of jumping the gun and looking illiterate, you would have realized that I clearly said "Although Ponyta cannot have Flame body in the games". Pokemon in the anime have always been able to bend the rules in this way and since I was mentioning that it was probably only a ''concept'' at the time doesn't mean they would have written it down "we have already given Ponyta a quality very similar to flame body - make it '''top priority''' to keep this consistent when we ''possibly'' introduce something like this to future games". This site ''loves'' assumptions (when made up by their own staff of coarse), just like Ash's/animes Ho-oh is stated to be both the gold colored one and the normal colored one is a perfect example of how I believe that something like this is also proof of future thoughts into the series. So why "this different colored Ho-oh points towards future Pokémon and growth of the series" (even so far as a specific Pokémon that apparently changes colors) and "this example of a pokemon quality (i.e. ability and specifically one which happens to act a lot like Flame Body) points towards a future mechanic" is soooo different that I have to be shunned eludes me -- [[User:D558|D558]] 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::Thanks to Dream world abilities Ataros only non-mentally challenged point is now worthless. Calls me a child while one of his "points" is be quiet, seriously... some people can't see logic in front of their face. I can, but I'm not a drone who follows the whims of the highly subjective material that liters this site when they pretend to be objective. Likely it will prove my point when I get warned/banned but Ateros arrogant statements likely went by unnoticed. Ponytas ability to control it's flames is similar to how sharpedos controlled rough skin. People think ahead (developers not anyone on this site), this is an early indication of things to come in the pokemon series, I'm not trying to say it was a blatant use of flame body but it is that pokemon are more then just types and moves. Pokemon didn't have natures till gen III but they had them from day one in the anime. I'm wasting logic here though. -- [[User:D558|D558]] 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Magikarp error == | == Magikarp error == | ||
Revision as of 23:13, 4 July 2011
Trivia?
As far as I remember, this is the first time Jessie calls one of the "twerps" (Ash) by his name. Is this relevant? --Johans 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Weezing
I was watching this episode, and when James told Weezing to use Smog, Weezing sounded different. Was that its Japanese voice?
Flame body?
- I have added it to trivia already but is it relevant that Ponyta's ability to control who it burns on contact a demonstration of the ability flame body? Although Ponyta cannot have Flame body in the games it's not unlikely that it could be a possibility in the pokemon world (the games are limited to a maximum of two possible abilities). The ability to control who is burned by its body parallels the use of Sharpedos Rough Skin in episode AG019 "Sharpedo Attack!". Obviously in generation 1 abilities weren't in play but this is an early indication that pokemon have unique qualities about them besides type and attacks -D558
- Well it seems that the close minded people who snob there way of running this site can have this kind of trivia plastered over every other page but since I don't know them personally my observation is snubbed; So Congratulations to the few people who read this! You learned that Pokémon thought ahead and gave Pokémon unique aspects (almost working exactly like several future abilities) past types and moves and possibly saw future growth beyond the first generation! -D558 06:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yo dude two things, 1. Be quiet...just because they took it off is no reason to act like a child about it 2. Ponyta doesn't even have flame body, if it was true you'd think that it would have Flame body (and Flash fire doesn't work that way)
- Well it seems that the close minded people who snob there way of running this site can have this kind of trivia plastered over every other page but since I don't know them personally my observation is snubbed; So Congratulations to the few people who read this! You learned that Pokémon thought ahead and gave Pokémon unique aspects (almost working exactly like several future abilities) past types and moves and possibly saw future growth beyond the first generation! -D558 06:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Ataro 07:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- if you actually bothered to read instead of jumping the gun and looking illiterate, you would have realized that I clearly said "Although Ponyta cannot have Flame body in the games". Pokemon in the anime have always been able to bend the rules in this way and since I was mentioning that it was probably only a concept at the time doesn't mean they would have written it down "we have already given Ponyta a quality very similar to flame body - make it top priority to keep this consistent when we possibly introduce something like this to future games". This site loves assumptions (when made up by their own staff of coarse), just like Ash's/animes Ho-oh is stated to be both the gold colored one and the normal colored one is a perfect example of how I believe that something like this is also proof of future thoughts into the series. So why "this different colored Ho-oh points towards future Pokémon and growth of the series" (even so far as a specific Pokémon that apparently changes colors) and "this example of a pokemon quality (i.e. ability and specifically one which happens to act a lot like Flame Body) points towards a future mechanic" is soooo different that I have to be shunned eludes me -- D558 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks to Dream world abilities Ataros only non-mentally challenged point is now worthless. Calls me a child while one of his "points" is be quiet, seriously... some people can't see logic in front of their face. I can, but I'm not a drone who follows the whims of the highly subjective material that liters this site when they pretend to be objective. Likely it will prove my point when I get warned/banned but Ateros arrogant statements likely went by unnoticed. Ponytas ability to control it's flames is similar to how sharpedos controlled rough skin. People think ahead (developers not anyone on this site), this is an early indication of things to come in the pokemon series, I'm not trying to say it was a blatant use of flame body but it is that pokemon are more then just types and moves. Pokemon didn't have natures till gen III but they had them from day one in the anime. I'm wasting logic here though. -- D558 23:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- if you actually bothered to read instead of jumping the gun and looking illiterate, you would have realized that I clearly said "Although Ponyta cannot have Flame body in the games". Pokemon in the anime have always been able to bend the rules in this way and since I was mentioning that it was probably only a concept at the time doesn't mean they would have written it down "we have already given Ponyta a quality very similar to flame body - make it top priority to keep this consistent when we possibly introduce something like this to future games". This site loves assumptions (when made up by their own staff of coarse), just like Ash's/animes Ho-oh is stated to be both the gold colored one and the normal colored one is a perfect example of how I believe that something like this is also proof of future thoughts into the series. So why "this different colored Ho-oh points towards future Pokémon and growth of the series" (even so far as a specific Pokémon that apparently changes colors) and "this example of a pokemon quality (i.e. ability and specifically one which happens to act a lot like Flame Body) points towards a future mechanic" is soooo different that I have to be shunned eludes me -- D558 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Magikarp error
Earlier in this episode, Ash can be seen eating a breaded Magikarp, by the looks of it, besides the fact that in EP016, it is clearly stated that Magikarp's can't be eaten. --Beanmaster12 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its just bread shaped like a Magikarp, not an actual Magikarp....--ForceFire 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
supposed trivia.
the episode 66 article says that the three stooges are referenced both in that episode and in this one, yet this article has no mention of how The Three Stooges are referenced in this episode. So, are they really referenced in here? If so, how so? And of course, it should be mentioned. (I read over the article twice and I even did control + F on various key words to make sure I wasn't wrong).In A Manica 03:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
