Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

5th Gen Legendary Pokemon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sabett said:
First of all, those aren't birds as you said before, secondly those pelvic structures are much more subtle, rather than reshirams fine point, and last of all, the only similarities that reshiram and that bird raptor are the general body shape, and then it ends there, there's not nearly enough resemblance to warrant reshiram's inappropriate detail, not to mention the obscurity of this connection. No one's going to look at reshiram and think, oh just like velociraptors. And if it were supposed to be some "homage" to the dinosaur, then, as plenty of people have pointed out, why is it fur and not a bumb in the pokemon's skeletal structure? There are only reasons for Reshiram to not have it, as silly as other people find it, but I fail to find any reason at all, why Reshiram needs it there in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better had it not be there? Wouldn't the pokemon look even better?
Click to expand...

Haha lack of knowledge much? Velociraptors were thought to have had feathers too. If you can not make the connection or see what inspired their design you truly are insane. Keep up the good fight though, because clearly this is worth your time.
 
Why is there so much concern about Reshiram? It is only going to be taken to the extent of what the player wants it to be. I hardly doubt that a 9 year old kid would take it that way. If they grow up and realize it they will not be offended but rahther take it as a humourus joke.

Come on people have you even taken a look at Castform?
 
Ninjask88 said:
Why is there so much concern about Reshiram? It is only going to be taken to the extent of what the player wants it to be. I hardly doubt that a 9 year old kid would take it that way. If they grow up and realize it they will not be offended but rahther take it as a humourus joke.

Come on people have you even taken a look at Castform?
Click to expand...

soooooo true....:rolleyes:
 
I'd have to see the white one in action before I assume anything suggestive. It's hard to judge based on one pose IMO.

I like both of them actually. A lot more than Palkia and Dialga, that's for sure. Hopefully they have some cool types and good move pools.
 
The artwork looks like they are from Monster Rancher or Digimon to me. Not a big fan of those two, but to each their own.
 
Aren't 9 year olds the EXACT ones to make a big deal of this and joke about it?

I find it all curious, and a little bit, eh, odd.

I wish they would just do a quick "redesign" as it does not appear to add to the creature at all.

Vince
 
meganium45 said:
Aren't 9 year olds the EXACT ones to make a big deal of this and joke about it?

I find it all curious, and a little bit, eh, odd.

I wish they would just do a quick "redesign" as it does not appear to add to the creature at all.

Vince
Click to expand...

It's unlikely. The box art rarely changes once it's been released. I think the best we can hope for at this point is that their sprites look significantly better than their official artwork, since sprites DO change in the runup before release.

It's something I've never hoped before, and now I'm hoping it for three pokemon at once. (The two legendaries and Mijumaru)
 
Wow Sabett.. seriously.

There is no phallus on the pokemon. There's a tuft of hair. If that makes you think it's meant to be a phallus, then you're the one mentally adding the "inappropriate" part. That goes to everyone. If a kid looks at the card and sees a wiener, the kid clearly knows what a wiener is and nothing is inflicted upon his/her psyche. If they're not aware of genitalia, they aren't suddenly going to be scarred by what they see as hair.

Beyond that, the SHAPE you keep screaming about is not anywhere close to a representation of male genitalia. It's a curved triangle. You mentally have to make a big jump to say that it looks like a ding-dong. The LOCATION is sensible, it's a natural transition for a furred animal, as the coat of hair curves around and under the torso. It's not really an anatomically likely place for a reproductive organ, compared to mammals in general. Again, you're only seeing what YOU want to see there.

As far as a lawsuit, that's so ridiculous it's not worth considering. Nintendo isn't pushing sexual themes into the minds of innocent children. At worst, kids are projecting so called "inappropriate" themes onto the Pokemon! There is absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit. Sure, someone could go crazy and try, but hell, anyone can attempt a law suit about anything. "The yellow fill in the text of the Pokemon logo reminds me of the jacket that a childhood bully wore! I'm suing!" That's really not any more ridiculous of a claim, and yet I can't imagine anyone actually suggesting they change the color of the text.

Finally, I repeated your experiment, and took the pictures of both pokemon to my local league. I showed players, parents, kids and adults the pictures and simply asked "What do you think of the new pokemon?" I received tons of responses along the lines of "COOL!" "I WANT THAT ONE!" and "HE LOOKS STRONG!". One player pointed out the palkia-esque designs. Most of the parents simply nodded and smiled, expressing almost no interest at all. The few who are into the franchise asked questions about when the pokemon would come out or what their powers could be.

One mother asked "This hasn't come out yet, right?" to which I replied "No, not till next year". She breathed a sigh of relief and said "Thank God there's time!" after which she pulled out her cell phone and dialed a number. I'm not sure who she was talking to, but I heard "Charles, listen, Nintendo is gearing up to poison the minds of our children with unacceptable sexual imagery! Yes.. uh-huh. Right, if we start the litigation right away, we might be able to stop them! Or alt least make a few million." She hung up the phone, and then shouted "You're all under arrest, the police will be here soon to confiscate this filfth that you call a game!".

Wait, that didn't happen. That whole paragraph was made up. In reality, not a single person mentioned the spot of hair. Not one.


Now, I'll agree with you that the designs in general look a little uninspired, and don't particularly feel like "pokemon" to me. Then again, my idea of a Pokemon is a coconut tree with feet and smiling faces on each of the coconuts, so the "optimally designed super-fighter" pokemon never really were my cup of tea.
 
gameryamen said:
Wow Sabett.. seriously.

There is no phallus on the pokemon. There's a tuft of hair. If that makes you think it's meant to be a phallus, then you're the one mentally adding the "inappropriate" part. That goes to everyone. If a kid looks at the card and sees a wiener, the kid clearly knows what a wiener is and nothing is inflicted upon his/her psyche. If they're not aware of genitalia, they aren't suddenly going to be scarred by what they see as hair.

Beyond that, the SHAPE you keep screaming about is not anywhere close to a representation of male genitalia. It's a curved triangle. You mentally have to make a big jump to say that it looks like a ding-dong. The LOCATION is sensible, it's a natural transition for a furred animal, as the coat of hair curves around and under the torso. It's not really an anatomically likely place for a reproductive organ, compared to mammals in general. Again, you're only seeing what YOU want to see there.

As far as a lawsuit, that's so ridiculous it's not worth considering. Nintendo isn't pushing sexual themes into the minds of innocent children. At worst, kids are projecting so called "inappropriate" themes onto the Pokemon! There is absolutely no grounds for a lawsuit. Sure, someone could go crazy and try, but hell, anyone can attempt a law suit about anything. "The yellow fill in the text of the Pokemon logo reminds me of the jacket that a childhood bully wore! I'm suing!" That's really not any more ridiculous of a claim, and yet I can't imagine anyone actually suggesting they change the color of the text.

Finally, I repeated your experiment, and took the pictures of both pokemon to my local league. I showed players, parents, kids and adults the pictures and simply asked "What do you think of the new pokemon?" I received tons of responses along the lines of "COOL!" "I WANT THAT ONE!" and "HE LOOKS STRONG!". One player pointed out the palkia-esque designs. Most of the parents simply nodded and smiled, expressing almost no interest at all. The few who are into the franchise asked questions about when the pokemon would come out or what their powers could be.

One mother asked "This hasn't come out yet, right?" to which I replied "No, not till next year". She breathed a sigh of relief and said "Thank God there's time!" after which she pulled out her cell phone and dialed a number. I'm not sure who she was talking to, but I heard "Charles, listen, Nintendo is gearing up to poison the minds of our children with unacceptable sexual imagery! Yes.. uh-huh. Right, if we start the litigation right away, we might be able to stop them! Or alt least make a few million." She hung up the phone, and then shouted "You're all under arrest, the police will be here soon to confiscate this filfth that you call a game!".

Wait, that didn't happen. That whole paragraph was made up. In reality, not a single person mentioned the spot of hair. Not one.


Now, I'll agree with you that the designs in general look a little uninspired, and don't particularly feel like "pokemon" to me. Then again, my idea of a Pokemon is a coconut tree with feet and smiling faces on each of the coconuts, so the "optimally designed super-fighter" pokemon never really were my cup of tea.
Click to expand...
No care, dawg. It's been days since I've replied. I've been insulted repeatedly on this thread, despite me countlessly reporting posts, and asking people to stop. I've even contacted officials, and as you can see nothing has been done. You people want to be right so dang bad? You win. I don't care.

And for the record, calisupra2nr, I am fully aware of the connection between birds and dinosaurs, I was simply saying there are clear differences between the two, and that it looks a lot more similar to a bird than a raptor.

Also before anyone dares even argue that I was a troll, you should look up the definition, as you have all clearly confused it with someone who is simply vigilant with their opinion, ie stubborn.

Here's what the wiki says:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

I absolutely never had the intention to provoke anyone, at all to insult me, or give emotional response. My intentions were to have nothing more than a discussion. The irony is that if anything, you were the one's trolling me, constantly insulting me, calling me a pothead, calling me crazy, saying I have an "unhealthy obsession". Tell me, what did any of that have to do with this topic, at all? None, the only clear intent of those posts, were to get at me, because you didn't like what I was saying, not because it was logical reply to what I said.
 
gameryamen said:
Whoa, don't take it personal man, I was just participating in the discussion. I meant no offense to you, I just thought you were overreacting.

As an aside, you should check out the "Moving the goalposts" fallacious argument.
Click to expand...
I don't study logic or debate, but from what I can understand, the things I mentioned, such as treating all posters equally, was never a moved goal. It was always there, it's on the forum rules, it should be understood among all posters that such behavior is inappropriate. What if someone starts cursing at you in a debate, you should simply ignore it, when you've told them repeatedly to stop and even informed the officials of such behavior, and no action in any way shape or form has been taken?

Also if you want to talk about fallacies, isn't it a fallacy to point out that it's hair? When I've clearly stated over and over again that it is the shape and location of said object that is the issue? It doesn't matter what it's made out of.

Also, where you say this is no grounds for a lawsuit, the person who sued for Kadabra had much less grounds to begin with.

But in either case, though I replied to some of the things you've said, I'm done with this thread, I'm offended by the lack of action that has been taken and the repeated insults carried out to me on this thread. I'm sorry you and I could not have a sensible conversation about it. It really looks like you would teach me a thing or two about how to debate.
 
the person who sued over kadabra did because it was him *personally* that supposedly was being defamed, by name. there's big difference between that and someone suing because they're offended at the look of a pokemon...

'mom
 
HypnosProjectHQ said:
I don't really appreciate all this spamming on my thread. It's a Pokemon. Chill out. If you want to talk offensive, look at your own signature. I'm not religious, but my relatives who are super-Catholics would find that extremely offensive. So just chill out dude. You're just as offensive to others as Gamefreak/Nintendo is to you. If you wanna protest this Pokemon so much, don't buy or play the game. And contact officials from the company. Stop fussing and complaining here. /end rant
Click to expand...
I just said I was done talking on the subject... Also there's a big difference between an opinion that might offend someone and creating a cartoon character that could be seen as obscene or directly insulting someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top