FANDOM


  • Wokistan
    Wokistan closed this thread because:
    Enacted
    03:10, July 4, 2019

    In an old thread a made we conclude that feats of taking any amount of damge and then lossing that damage off-screen should only be taken as a regeneration feat if the characters in question have already shown or later show regenerative capabilities. No matter if the characters have high levels of toon force or anything.

    That much is fine, and I'm good with it, however something we did not agree on was to make a note about this on the Regeneration page, well, about that, I disagree. Completely.

    Garfield's At least High-Mid regen

    This thing gives Garfield At least High-Mid regen...nothing more than this pic.

    Since then, I had to elaborate that this is how we go handle these situations on numerous threads, sometimes having to go back and tediously search for that old thread I did for evidence. And who knows how many profiles are having wrong regeneration levels via this supposed off-screen feats?

    It is ultimately unharmful to mention this in the Regeneration page, so, can we do just that?

      Loading editor
    • Sorry I am a little confused. Was it your opponents who said there shouldn't be a note on the regeneration page?

        Loading editor
    • More or less yes, Ryu said that he didn't thought it was necessary. As many keep giving this high regen levels to characters who shouldn't have it, I believe it would be very helpful.

        Loading editor
    • How do you think it should be worded?

        Loading editor
    • "We consider instances where characters recover from damage off-screen to be a demonstration of regeneration only when said characters already have or later shown to have regenerative capabilities, even if this comes through scaling to other character(s). Characters with Toon Force aren't exempt to this. Proper evidence and/or context must be given in the characters' profiles to justify Regeneration coming from this situations, including showing the instance where the characters take the damage, the instance where the characters are shown healed after that, preferably an indication of the amount of time between both instances, and ultimately evidence of them having regenerative capabilities through other feats or scaling, which could logically be something with a lower level of regeneration."

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I'd rather not insert that huge wall of text into the page. Can you try making the explanation more concise? I will help you out if needed.

        Loading editor
    • "We consider instances where characters recover from damage off-screen to be Regeneration only when said characters already have or later shown to have Regeneration, even if this comes through scaling to other character(s). Characters with Toon Force aren't exempt to this. Proper evidence and/or context must be given in the characters' profiles to justify Regeneration coming from this situations, including showing the instance where the characters take the damage, where the characters are shown healed after that, preferably an indication of the amount of time between both instances, and ultimately evidence of them having regenerative capabilities through other feats or scaling, which could logically be something with a lower level of regeneration."?

      I don't think it should have less than that.

        Loading editor
    • It can also just be Note at the bottom of the page.

        Loading editor
    • "Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of regeneration unless further context supports it. For reference, see this thread"

      Some expansion might be necessary, but the text should not be much bigger than this.

        Loading editor
    • I mean I was against the whole thing in that old thread so it kinda makes me look bad but ok.

        Loading editor
    • Lol don't worry. That's not going to make you look bad...I hope.

        Loading editor
    • This remind me the Bugs Bunny's supposed Mid Godly Regen feat

        Loading editor
    • Bump.

        Loading editor
    • I agree.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote: "Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of regeneration unless supported by further context. This is because such cases are likely to be continuity errors rather than an intended demonstration of the character's capabilities. For reference, see this thread"

      Modified my note a bit.

        Loading editor
    • Well, it's not just continuity errors, other character(s) could have heal/revived the initial characters, or other cases depending on the context of the verse. If we want to keep this short is better not to mention that. And we should link this thread instead of the other, as it doesn't mention having regen via scaling as valid context for a character to have an off-screen regen feat.

        Loading editor
    • How about "Instances of....by further context. This is due to reasons ranging from possible off-screen treatment to continuity errors. See this thread (the one we are in) for reference."?

        Loading editor
    • That's good. Do we need someone in particular approving this?

        Loading editor
    • You might want to ask Ryu, since he was against it in the beginning.

        Loading editor
    • I'd be fine with a note.

      This, and some other issues stem from how we try and force continuity to some series that don't really have it unless it's convenient, like the above Garfield.

        Loading editor
    • Does this affect Bugs?

        Loading editor
    • Cartoons lacking continuity shouldn't be treated as a feat IMO

        Loading editor
    • @Ryu There is a difference between a one-time visual gag that isn't even really acknowledged by other characters and series who are entirely about gag (and thus, gag feats) and whose gag feats are often central to the plot of the strip in question. For the case of Garfield, treating everything superhuman as just "gags" and pushing for him just being a cat would ignore like almost everything the series has, feat-wise.

      About the regen matter, I'm more neutral. My issue with off-screen recovery = regen was due to certain series having a dead character come back with absolutely no reasons nor even acknowledgment after years of not appearing, yet us treating it as their own regen, when ANYTHING could have happened in this timeframe, whereas "regen" feats in a short timeframe are hard to argue an alternative for. But like I said, I'm more neutral here.

        Loading editor
    • I'm more joking around. But yes both the Edd scene and Garfield (or any other character) "dying" but then returning inexplicably for the next episode are simply gags that are not meant to be taken in any way serious or as actual feats. The reason why Garfield came back next panel isn't "Garfield has the superpower of reforming his body after destruction". The reason he came back is cause cartoons lack continuity and permanently killing off the star of a billion dollar franchise to preserve continuity is ludicrous. Injecting any sort of canon explanation for this is futile. "Garfield has regeneration and magically restored his body off panel" is no more of a valid explanation than saying "a wizard magically poofed him back to life off panel". Of course if someone canonically has regeneration and healed off screen that's entirely different. But this is essentially attributing a continuity error as a feat.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I don't see how off screen shenanigans can be used to justify regen. Unless there is definite statements about what happened off panel

        Loading editor
    • @Ryu The thread is more about if a note should be added to the regeneration page, rather than being another discussion of whether these types of feats are valid or not.

        Loading editor
    • Tho I agree with you. Kick Buttowski for example once got injured so badly, he had like each limb snapped in three different places. And the very next scene he was in tip top shape.

      It is clear that thing like these aren't supposed to be demonstrations of regeneration capabilities

        Loading editor
    • Characters restoring themselves off screen for a gag just means that the regeneration is done via toon force. It makes the regen no less valid, and there are many powers of toon force characters that go un acknowledged be the story because they are part of jokes. Bugs destroying stars is for a gag and so is Garfield regenerating from.being blown to particles.

        Loading editor
    • Except there is literally zero evidence that the character even regenerated. The cartoon provides zero explanation why they're back. They just are. There's no more reason to claim "the character magically restored their power off screen without it ever being mentioned" than there is to say "a wizard magically poofed them back to life off screen without it ever being mentioned". Both of them are headcanon explanations with nothing to support them. Also again it's a gag filled cartoon. They're not necessarily bastions of consistent continuity. Why is a continuity error a feat? So if a movie had a character wearing different colored shirts inbetween shots, we should just say that character has an unmentioned ability to magically change their shirt color?

        Loading editor
    • @Lap It's less about the regeneration feat being gag based and more about it being non existant. Gumball got to have regeneration for a gag feat, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

        Loading editor
    • @Ryu Wow...you write so much faster than me.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      @Lap It's less about the regeneration feat being gag based and more about it being non existant. Gumball got to have regeneration for a gag feat, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

      I'm not sure what Gumball scene you're talking about but I know for "gags" Spongebob and Patrick have regenerated on screen (with it even being outright stated they're growing their limbs back). In that case sure even if it's a "gag" I'm fine with regeneration being added as an ability.

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      @Ryu Wow...you write so much faster than me.

      Lol thanks

        Loading editor
    • I'm not complementing you. I am insulting myself

      Anyway, what are your opinions on adding the note?

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote:
      I'm not complementing you.
      IMG 3183
        Loading editor
    • Anyways I don't know how the page should be worded but I think

      A character who canonically has regeneration healing off screen = fine.

      A character "dying" for a gag and then inexplicably coming back and us just assuming this is some completely unmentioned regeneration when really it's just part of gag with no continuity = not fine.

        Loading editor
    • I was working on a note earlier. Here's the current version

      "Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of regeneration unless supported by further context. This is due to reasons ranging from possibility of off-screen treatment to continuity errors. See this thread for reference."

      Thoughts?

        Loading editor
    • What about Bugs bunny's regen? According to the new rule it seem no longer valid

        Loading editor
    • @Andy seems fine to me

        Loading editor
    • Wouldn't this change take away a cpl of characters regen?

        Loading editor
    • @Black I don't know if it even is a "change", we never had a policy encouraging it so we can't say them having regen was valid before this thread.

        Loading editor
    • yeh, I get you. Bugs justifications for mid godly are iffy anyway tbh.

        Loading editor
    • Bugs' regen is a different matter here, he scales to the toon force of other when doing so is inaccurate as that power isn't something one should scale to anyone. Idk about Tweety but Daffy having Mid-Godly is ok.

      @Ryu This is a note that explains everything and doesn't send others to a thread, the problem with it is that it is too long, but I personally don't see any inconvenient with it, and think that will make things more clear for anyone. Thoughts?

      Eficiente wrote: "We consider instances where characters recover from damage off-screen to be Regeneration only when said characters already have or later shown to have Regeneration, even if this comes through scaling to other character(s). Characters with Toon Force aren't exempt to this. Proper evidence and/or context must be given in the characters' profiles to justify Regeneration coming from this situations, including showing the instance where the characters take the damage, where the characters are shown healed after that, preferably an indication of the amount of time between both instances, and ultimately evidence of them having regenerative capabilities through other feats or scaling, which could logically be something with a lower level of regeneration."

        Loading editor
    • I think one of the issues here is what we mean by regen. If you include a character like Kumagawa's ability to shrug off and restore himself from almost any injury instantly with his causality manipulation regen, then these characters have regen. Same principle for characters with time reversal. Perhaps the characters should just have the ability describing them to healing. 

      As for the Garfield thing, my interpretation of the joke was not so much that it was unexplained how he came back next week, but from the unexpectedness of the events within the story. Speaking of which, it has been a while, but I am fairly sure Garfield's whole cast has shown regenerate capacity, or at least the ability to shrug off most damage because they are comedic characters. And yea, that is what I remember of an in universe explanation, at least from my vague memories of the movie

        Loading editor
    • This isn't a problem at all as we ask for proper context to be given. Which Garfield doesn't give.

        Loading editor
    • They can all heal. I cannot believe I'm about to say this, but I am gonna go watch Garfield Gets Real to check for its statements on cosmology. I am told that basically all of Garfield shares continuity, hence why the profile is pointless to composite. I got papers to write tho, so I'll let y'all know what I find later

        Loading editor
    • Iapitus The Impaler wrote:
      I think one of the issues here is what we mean by regen. If you include a character like Kumagawa's ability to shrug off and restore himself from almost any injury instantly with his causality manipulation regen, then these characters have regen. Same principle for characters with time reversal. Perhaps the characters should just have the ability describing them to healing. 

      Here's the difference. All those characters actually have these powers. As in, there's canonical evidence they do and we're not just attributing continuity errors as feats.

      As for the Garfield thing, my interpretation of the joke was not so much that it was unexplained how he came back next week, but from the unexpectedness of the events within the story.

      But it isn't explained. At all. If you're going to use "unexpectedness of events" to somehow justify that he magically and unmentionedly reformed his body off panel, I can just say "unexpectedness of events" to justify a wizard magically and unmentionedly poofing him back off panel. Should I make a profile for this wizard then?

      And yea, that is what I remember of an in universe explanation, at least from my vague memories of the movie

      If they actually have regeneration and this isn't just "they supposedly "died" before and now there's back for no reason" then sure. But I'll need a source for that.

        Loading editor
    • Ryukama wrote:
      Andytrenom wrote:
      I'm not complementing you.
      IMG 3183

      Top 10 Anime Betrayals.

        Loading editor
    • I just wanna say, a lack of continuity should be recorded in profiles. A character dying and then coming back normal-like is a capability of that character. You can call it regeneration via Acausality. 

      If it's something like, dies in this episode or in this comic strip. Comes back perfectly fine in the next one, it may not be combat applicable.

      if it's something like, dies in this scene, is back to life in the very next scene, that's combat applicable.

        Loading editor
    • No it's not a feat. It's just a continuity error. Have you ever seen a movie where an object is in the background one shot and then just isn't in the next? How silly would it be to claim that the character has reality warping and instantly teleported that object away? This is essentially what's being proposed.

      And again there is no more reason to inject regeneration as an explanation than to make up whatever explanation for something that clearly has no actual canon explanation. Instead I'm just going to say an unmentioned wizard showed up and magically poofed them back to life off screen and then make a profile for that wizard. There is no more evidence for the character having some unmentioned regeneration ability and magically reforming their body being the explanation than there is for that being the explanation.

      Even if we want to just ignore that this is simply a gag that doesn't care about continuity and actually take this scene seriously, the problem is we just don't know how it happened. We can't say it was "regeneration" because a reason was not stated or shown.

        Loading editor
    • It is not a continuity error the feats in question (if we are using the garfield as prime example). The creators knew exactly what they were doing. Its' done 100% on purpose for the gag. A continuity error is a character wearing a red shirt and then wearing a blue one, something that wasn't done on purpose.

      We don't need an in-depth explanation. We can use our discretion. A character was hurt and then they weren't. A character disintegrated and now they're back together. In both cases the character regenerated.

      These aren't continuity errors. And we don't need the author to write a thesis paper explaining how it was done. We can simply use our minds. I don't like when people invoke occam's razor but it fits here.

        Loading editor
    • The character having regeneration isn't the reason they're back though. The series lack of continuity is the reason they're back. Sure one is just being purposefully neglectful of continuity for the sake of gags and the other is mistakingly messing up with continuity. But the fact remains that a lack of continuity is not a superpower for a character.

      Except it isn't occam's razor. Occam's razor isn't "Oh this character actually secretly has the completely unmentioned ability of regeneration and then magically restored their destroyed body off panel without it ever being spoken of". It's "this was just a gag and cartoons don't care about continuity".

      Okay then I "simply used my mind" to say that an unmentioned wizard magically poofed them back into existence off panel. This is an equally valid "explanation" as the character having an unmentioned regeneration power and magically restored their body off panel because neither explanations have any evidence for them. And both explanations are technically unfalsifiable as there's no canon material explicitly contradicting them. If there is no explanation as to why this character is back after supposedly "dying" then you can't just inject some random reason and act as if it's canon. But if you want to inject one, then regeneration doesn't even need to be it. That's the problem with asserting it as an actual ability this character has.

        Loading editor
    • @Ryukama

      You missed my point of my examples completely. I was more saying that "regeneration" comes in different forms. Garfield has repeatedly shrugged off injuries, this just happens to be one of the more extreme ones. Trying to shrug off all of these as "continuity errors" can only be properly done with confirmation bias. Garfield comic strips often have some sense of continuity to them even if the events are often disconnected. How many times, when comics have shown to have a connected continuity, do they need to come back from injuries off screen before it stops just being "continuity errors" in your eyes. Besides, that name implies that it was unintentional

      Again, you completely missed my point. People were saying that the point of this is that it is disconnected from continuity, I was saying that is not my interprettation. I was not trying to justify the vote, I was saying that I do not agree with the interpretation that you and some others had.

      I can give you other examples of him shrugging off damage and coming back from it if you want, but other than that I am not sure what it is you want.

        Loading editor
    • I think there was an actual moment in a Garfield Show episode where he actually says he´ll recover from it anyways via toon force or something in those lines.

        Loading editor
    • @Bobsican

      can you try and find it by any chance? Iirc there was also something about that in Garfield gets real

        Loading editor
    • Iapitus The Impaler wrote:
      @Ryukama Garfield has repeatedly shrugged off injuries, this just happens to be one of the more extreme ones. Trying to shrug off all of these as "continuity errors" can only be properly done with confirmation bias. Garfield comic strips often have some sense of continuity to them even if the events are often disconnected. How many times, when comics have shown to have a connected continuity, do they need to come back from injuries off screen before it stops just being "continuity errors" in your eyes.

      If there's just so many instances that it's simply bias to deny it then surely you should be able to provide at least some scans right? Because the only thing that anyone so far has brought up is simply Garfield "dies" in an issue and then he's just back the next issue. And no, I don't consider someone dying in a gag but then inexplicably being back to be a feat of regeneration.

      Find something in which we either actually see Garfield regenerating on panel or it's stated he has regeneration. AKA, actual evidence he has this ability. The thing is even if we want to take this gag seriously, which it shouldn't be, the sheer fact that there's zero explanation for why he's back means we can't just claim it was regeneration.

      If there is any instance of Garfield demonstrably or being stated to have regeneration of course I'd be happy to keep it on the profile.

        Loading editor
    • Iapitus The Impaler wrote:
      @Bobsican

      can you try and find it by any chance? Iirc there was also something about that in Garfield gets real

      Garfield should have Self-Sustenance Type 1 via this

      Duplication

      Possible precognition

      And I couldn´t find the episode, I remember it was one where Garfield got his hair entirely removed, thus turning "naked".

        Loading editor
    • This thread's not about Garfield, remove all that.

        Loading editor
    • Ryukama wrote:
      Andytrenom wrote:
      @Lap It's less about the regeneration feat being gag based and more about it being non existant. Gumball got to have regeneration for a gag feat, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.
      I'm not sure what Gumball scene you're talking about but I know for "gags" Spongebob and Patrick have regenerated on screen (with it even being outright stated they're growing their limbs back). In that case sure even if it's a "gag" I'm fine with regeneration being added as an ability.

      It was the scene where Gumball got struck by lightning so badly he turned to dust, which is currently listed as Mid-High (His eyes were still intact tho, regenerating from your eyes is Low-High I think). But yeah, SpongeBob characters regenerate onscreen a lot

        Loading editor
    • We were, very close to finish this. Can we at least add what was already accepted? I guess I would be satisfied with that.

        Loading editor
    • Throwing in my support even though this looks like it’s over.

        Loading editor
    • Appreciated.

        Loading editor
    • Bump. This was nearly done, I would appreciate if we could finish it to help the wiki in general and so I myself may not have to bring this up in threads.

        Loading editor
    • Bump.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with ryu, if not clear enough

        Loading editor
    • @Wokistan Thank you

        Loading editor
    • Andytrenom wrote: "Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of regeneration unless supported by further context. This is due to reasons ranging from possibility of off-screen treatment to continuity errors. See this thread for reference."

      Can this, or something along those lines, be added then?

        Loading editor
    • Bump.

        Loading editor
    • Sure, I'll go add it to the page

        Loading editor
    • Thank you. I believe this thread can be closed now.

      That said here's another thread about regen I made.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Ryukama.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with my dad

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.