Las Noches Size Downgrade

[Nierre]

I found myself going back and forth on this, so I wanted to give it a couple hours and read through the arguments before I come to a conclusion.

Usually, I'm a big statements guy. So I was leaning on disagreeing with the OP, however I as I was reading through the thread and rereading the blog, one thing stood out to me.

That being, the use of a statement from a valid source. IMO, I don't think there's any reason to assume Nel, a guide, is wrong here, HOWEVER using that statement to calc visuals that are heavily inconsistent with said statement, is what I disagree with. And as is proven within the blog, LN is consistently much, much, smaller, within different portions of the arc and different angles.

Well said; it's really annoying to me when supporters of a verse happily proclaim that we can't depend on a series' own visuals and that statements should always be used, but then they use visuals for everything else and accept that they're totally fine to use.

Damage said it best here, but it's odd that we recognize that the visuals are inconsistent with the existence of said statement, and still use both to determine the size of LN anyway.

So count me as agreeing with the OP.

 

[Planck69]

The thread seems to have been unanimously accepted by staff then (I presume based on Agnaa's last comment calling the argument "damning" but he can correct me if I am misreading him).

 

[Specterxxxx]

I think the arguments the OP and some of the people supporting this thread are really dishonest, and some of the “points” being used to discredit the Nel statement are even worse. But that’s fine ,I’ll address all of it here.

Over the years, we’ve already established that in Bleach, especially when it comes to the size of locations, visuals should not be used to override statements. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is Kubo’s lack of focus on backgrounds. This was already talked about in the blog post about the Seireitei, where it was pointed out that many of the backgrounds people rely on were mostly drawn by assistants. Now, I’m not saying visuals should be ignored completely. What I am saying is that when visuals contradict direct statements, the statements should take priority. That goes double when the statement is narratively important like this one. If the author directly gives information about the scale of a place, that should matter more than background shots that clearly weren’t his main focus. And yes, it’s true that Las Noches looks more visually consistent than the Seireitei. But that’s mainly because Las Noches is much simpler on the outside. It doesn’t really have many visible landmarks or detailed structures like the Seireitei does, so naturally it’s easier to draw it consistently. A simpler design is always easier to keep consistent than a complex one. On top of that, Las Noches has fewer visual depictions than the Seireitei in general. Some people might think that helps their argument, but it really doesn’t. Fewer drawings just means fewer chances for inconsistencies to show up in the first place so when you combine all of that with the fact that Kubo doesn’t prioritize backgrounds and often leaves them to assistants, using visuals as the main counterargument just doesn’t hold up.

At the end of the day, Kubo gave statements meant to emphasize the vastness of Las Noches, just like he did with the Seireitei. Those statements should be taken more seriously than background visuals and i will prove why nel's statement again should take priority.


To start with the elephant in the room, nel statment is NARRATIVELY important and is a reason meant to showcase the decision made by the ichigo and their crew, your own scan shows renji saying "we dont have three days" which just shows he doesn't even challenge the statement itself. Mind you, the same renji with the rest of the crew has seen the entirety of the las noches from a far position and has been to running to said location for a very long time so he would know based off common sense that her estimate is far from accurate, if the size of the fortress is 5km as the OP is proposing. Secondly, Nel has been living in Heuco mondo for literal centuries, so she should be more than aware of the size of literally the only built structure in the entire dimension that is heuco mondo, she is also a good source of information regarding other things in heuco mondo, the one that recently comes to my head is the tres betias, fraccions of harribel. In other words, disregarding narrative supported statements and logic backed the story itself is even far worse than disregarding the visuals the author doesn't even care about. I also saw the other statements you brought to refute this statement and you just picked random statements as an argument which puts into question whether you truly thought this through before adding that, but i will still address every single one.


This was a section from your blog;

"If statements are fair game we are to also consider Candice, Askin & Gremmy being building level as it's based on explicit author given statements and yet as of writing this in 25 April 2026, Candice & Askin are sitting at an outrageous Small Planet level tiering with Gremmy being around High 6-A/5-C, obviously these profiles are vastly overestimated and people would agree that they realistically are lower than that, but they would not be okay with her going as low as Building level, why? because NOW suddenly they wanna look at what is consistent, NOW suddenly statements aren't end all be all and to that all I am able to say is I agree because inherently it is true that consistency should take priority over all things, just like statements can be inconsistently low (5 GJ) they can conversely be inconsistently high (Mesosphere ceiling sized Las Noches) and for the same reasons this one off timeframe statement should be discarded."


I am sure you know this, but we don't use every statement in bleach as a non debatable argument, and it has nothing to do with statements that make the characters weaker than they actually are, because we do this across the board. It is why you don't see any one making a 4C grimjoww CRT based off shinji's statement about if grimjoww is trying to destroy the sun with his GRC in cyfow ( i can get the exact scan for you if you think, i am lying but i am sure we all know that scan) because we follow consistent interpretations from kubo. Futhermore, we also know BASE candice strongest attacks, most notably electrucion is directly stated to surpass any normal lightning so that alone is a blatant contradiction to her being 8C by itself. Secondly, Askin would in fact die if he falls from that height and it has nothing to do with his durability, the distance between the seretei and the royal palace is far too vast that it takes HOURS for ichigo the god tier of the verse when it comes to stats to reach seretei at top speed and also there are 72 barriers that will kill anyone who doesnt have the oken, so yes he would in fact die. Lastly, Gremmy doesn't have a fixed durability because his body is a product of his imagination and he says harder than steel not steel, even on site we dont scale gremmy's body to the power of the visionary so there was no need to bring that up or was is it a reference to zaraki who is known for holding back against opponents and then proceeded to cut gremmy in that same strike? All in all, these part of argument in entirely in bad faith and feels like it is meant to be misleading to people who don't know the show that much.


Moving on to this section of your argument, First of all are we really expecting kubo to be knowleageble in every piece of science that entails atmospheric conditions at certain heights in the atmosphere that isn't outerspace? i you mean you would have an argument if this was popular piece of trivia everyone knows about but that is the opposite, This is a knowledge that barely any mangaka considers when writing a manga that entails supernatural feats and is inherently fiction, it is okay to suspend your beliefs. Second of all, other reishi worlds like Soul society don't even follow this logic because explosions happen at attitudes wey higher than even what the OP is talking about. Ichigo can unleash getsuga tenshos bombs at millions of km above the seretei so shouldn't the logic be extended to a similar world made of reishi. So not only is the knowledge of atmospheric conditions not known to the author in a fictional story but the author even completely disregards it by having people fight at even higher altitudes in other similar reishi spaces.


As for your last paragraph, Can we even use this as a genuine argument?, when the person who put kenpachi there has the power to make anything, he imagines a literal reality lol. Gremmy literally put kenpachi in an outerspace HE created and imagined the effects happening to him inside said space so obviously, he would be affected. And even if he couldn't survive outerspace none of your argument shows that the same rule would apply to reishi world like hueco mondo, when it doesn't apply to soul soceity a high attitudes.

 

[SharkBook01]

That being, the use of a statement from a valid source. IMO, I don't think there's any reason to assume Nel, a guide, is wrong here, HOWEVER using that statement to calc visuals that are heavily inconsistent with said statement, is what I disagree with. And as is proven within the blog, LN is consistently much, much, smaller, within different portions of the arc and different angles.

I don't understand how y'all are saying Nel's statement is valid, but Las Noches is still only 3 miles in diameter.

These cannot coexist.

There's simply no way that it can feasibly take 3 days to walk a distance that small unless you're just arguing that Nel just straight up started lying for no reason.

It's honestly a much bigger assumption than the current one of saying she walked for 3 days straight. We literally have confirmation that the Hueco Mundo arc took place over the course of a few days without the protagonists taking any breaks.



People really aren't acknowledging just how small 3-miles really is and how much it doesn't make sense narratively with what happens inside Las Noches at all.

 

[Infinite9Luck]

That being, the use of a statement from a valid source. IMO, I don't think there's any reason to assume Nel, a guide, is wrong here, HOWEVER using that statement to calc visuals that are heavily inconsistent with said statement, is what I disagree with. And as is proven within the blog, LN is consistently much, much, smaller, within different portions of the arc and different angles.

What you suggesting is to remove the calcs that use pixel scaling instead of removing the size itself.

I don't understand how y'all are saying Nel's statement is valid, but Las Noches is still only 3 miles in diameter.

These cannot coexist.

There's simply no way that it can feasibly take 3 days to walk a distance that small unless you're just arguing that Nel just straight up started lying for no reason.

It's honestly a much bigger assumption than the current one of saying she walked for 3 days straight. We literally have confirmation that the Hueco Mundo arc took place over the course of a few days without the protagonists taking any breaks.

Which is why Las Noches can't be 5km, it means they can walk that in less than a 1 hour... or run over it in even less than 20min.
How does that make any sense when they could have just run to the other gate? Instead they say it takes DAYS.

None of this makes any sense.

I don't really care of visuals, the narrative is what matter, it is not even about statements. If Las Noches gate were to be at less than 5KM they could have reached that in less than a single hour even with just fast pace...let alone run. It completely defeat the purpose of the narrative of the building being that big not even days of walk are enough.

If people have issues with the calc, the calcs should be addressed, but reducing the size doesn't make any sense.

 

[SharkBook01]

None of the supporters will even acknowledge that 5KM makes absolutely zero sense within the story, even though that's what the past 2 pages have been over. It's going to feel really disingenuous if this thread gets accepted without them addressing the narrative arguments.

 

[Damage3245]

Which is why Las Noches can't be 5km, it means they can walk that in less than a 1 hour... or run over it in even less than 20min.
How does that make any sense when they could have just run to the other gate? Instead they say it takes DAYS.

None of this makes any sense.

I don't really care of visuals, the narrative is what matter, it is not even about statements. If Las Noches gate were to be at less than 5KM they could have reached that in less than a single hour even with just fast pace...let alone run. It completely defeat the purpose of the narrative of the building being that big not even days of walk are enough.

If people have issues with the calc, the calcs should be addressed, but reducing the size doesn't make any sense.

So you would be fine if the calcs were removed, but not the size?

 

[OleniyHlang+2]

Over the years, we’ve already established that in Bleach, especially when it comes to the size of locations, visuals should not be used to override statements. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is Kubo’s lack of focus on backgrounds. This was already talked about in the blog post about the Seireitei, where it was pointed out that many of the backgrounds people rely on were mostly drawn by assistants. Now, I’m not saying visuals should be ignored completely. What I am saying is that when visuals contradict direct statements, the statements should take priority.

Some abstract manipulations to keep characters at their levels

Я может тупой, но давать половине персонажей континенты/планетоиды. когда никто из них даже и острова не сломал, не особо является лично для меня особо хорошей идеей

 

[Infinite9Luck]

So you would be fine if the calcs were removed, but not the size?

Yes, but I thought that was your opinion too, tbh I don't understand why people started to agree to a 5km size one after the other, feels like they don't know the context about why Las Noches is big. It completely defeat the purpose of Renji and Ichigo saying they don't have 3 days... if they could just run to it in 10min...

I think the days of walk statements are good, because that's how Kubo communicate size, even if that means removing the calcs.

You can even go by absolute lowball, such as 16 hours of walk + 8 sleep, which is the bare minimum distance for a human, you can't really argue any lower than that.

 

[Nierre]

Sure, I'm for removing the calcs

meant to reply to infinite, not home so the this site wants to **** me over :/

 

[Damage3245]

I haven't agreed to a size change specifically to 5 KM. The OP is just listing our calcs that would need to be revised once a new size is agreed upon.

What I agree with at the very least is removing the current size and any calcs that depend on it.

 

[TheDeadman21]

The panels for the pillars are definitely consistent visually. Ulquiorra not looking like a tiny dot on a massive tower is a fair point.

But it's really important that Nel isn’t some random character throwing out statements. She’s their guide in Hueco Mundo. She’s been consistently correct about Arrancars, Grimmjow, the gates, and other important info throughout the arc. And as it was said above, when she says the gate is only 3 days walk from there, Renji immediately takes it seriously (“we don’t have three days”). The group was pressed for time and chose to smash through the wall instead of walking. That whole scene feels like Kubo intentionally conveying that Las Noches is huge. It’s not just one casual line, it has narrative weight. 5km just wouldn't make sense at all narratively.

Regarding the “if it was just one or two panels I would dismiss it, but there are many consistent ones” I understand the logic, but even if there are five or six consistent panels, I don't think that automatically means the statement should be discarded, especially considering all the context. Kubo has a habit of compressing scale. Authors can draw things smaller than they actually are in the story while still meaning the statement. Making characters visible specks on every wide shot would just look bad artistically to the author.

It’s very hard for me to believe Kubo wrote that line giving it to a reliable character, had the characters react to it seriously, and meant for Las Noches to be only a few kilometers wide. The visuals are consistent in the Ulquiorra fight, but they’re still background art. The statement feels like the author telling us the intended scale.

Ofc I'm not saying statements > visuals always or anything, but I don’t think they should fully override a statement that's heavily supported by narrative. Precedent in Bleach for location sizes has usually favored statements for this exact reason.

 

[KillerNerd007]

I read through the arc yesterday and seeing all the scans linked in this thread, I completely disagree with the notion that Las Noches size is inconsistent. It’s consistently way smaller than 200km+, it’s actually very consistently under 10km and it being a 5ish km structure seems far more reliable given all the panels it appears. It doesn’t have a single panel where it looks like even bigger than mere 20km.

I thought it was more than one statement suggesting what the size would be, but it’s just a timeframe statement? Do you guys have the slightest idea of how much the size can change depending on the speed used? Depending on if they took breaks? Do you have an idea of the amount of variables in this method?

I completely disagree with the current calc. If you guys think the art is unreliable then don’t use the panels to calc any of the feats involving it and you guys can keep the size. Or if you want to use the feats then comply with the new calc. This is the only compromise me and Damage are willing to make here, since Ghost said this is a Calc Group thread, and we’re the only ones here, I expect this to be respected.

Name the best one you can use.

 

[KillerNerd007]

I think the arguments the OP and some of the people supporting this thread are really dishonest, and some of the “points” being used to discredit the Nel statement are even worse. But that’s fine ,I’ll address all of it here.

Over the years, we’ve already established that in Bleach, especially when it comes to the size of locations, visuals should not be used to override statements. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is Kubo’s lack of focus on backgrounds. This was already talked about in the blog post about the Seireitei, where it was pointed out that many of the backgrounds people rely on were mostly drawn by assistants. Now, I’m not saying visuals should be ignored completely. What I am saying is that when visuals contradict direct statements, the statements should take priority. That goes double when the statement is narratively important like this one. If the author directly gives information about the scale of a place, that should matter more than background shots that clearly weren’t his main focus. And yes, it’s true that Las Noches looks more visually consistent than the Seireitei. But that’s mainly because Las Noches is much simpler on the outside. It doesn’t really have many visible landmarks or detailed structures like the Seireitei does, so naturally it’s easier to draw it consistently. A simpler design is always easier to keep consistent than a complex one. On top of that, Las Noches has fewer visual depictions than the Seireitei in general. Some people might think that helps their argument, but it really doesn’t. Fewer drawings just means fewer chances for inconsistencies to show up in the first place so when you combine all of that with the fact that Kubo doesn’t prioritize backgrounds and often leaves them to assistants, using visuals as the main counterargument just doesn’t hold up.

At the end of the day, Kubo gave statements meant to emphasize the vastness of Las Noches, just like he did with the Seireitei. Those statements should be taken more seriously than background visuals and i will prove why nel's statement again should take priority.


To start with the elephant in the room, nel statment is NARRATIVELY important and is a reason meant to showcase the decision made by the ichigo and their crew, your own scan shows renji saying "we dont have three days" which just shows he doesn't even challenge the statement itself. Mind you, the same renji with the rest of the crew has seen the entirety of the las noches from a far position and has been to running to said location for a very long time so he would know based off common sense that her estimate is far from accurate, if the size of the fortress is 5km as the OP is proposing. Secondly, Nel has been living in Heuco mondo for literal centuries, so she should be more than aware of the size of literally the only built structure in the entire dimension that is heuco mondo, she is also a good source of information regarding other things in heuco mondo, the one that recently comes to my head is the tres betias, fraccions of harribel. In other words, disregarding narrative supported statements and logic backed the story itself is even far worse than disregarding the visuals the author doesn't even care about. I also saw the other statements you brought to refute this statement and you just picked random statements as an argument which puts into question whether you truly thought this through before adding that, but i will still address every single one.


This was a section from your blog;

"If statements are fair game we are to also consider Candice, Askin & Gremmy being building level as it's based on explicit author given statements and yet as of writing this in 25 April 2026, Candice & Askin are sitting at an outrageous Small Planet level tiering with Gremmy being around High 6-A/5-C, obviously these profiles are vastly overestimated and people would agree that they realistically are lower than that, but they would not be okay with her going as low as Building level, why? because NOW suddenly they wanna look at what is consistent, NOW suddenly statements aren't end all be all and to that all I am able to say is I agree because inherently it is true that consistency should take priority over all things, just like statements can be inconsistently low (5 GJ) they can conversely be inconsistently high (Mesosphere ceiling sized Las Noches) and for the same reasons this one off timeframe statement should be discarded."


I am sure you know this, but we don't use every statement in bleach as a non debatable argument, and it has nothing to do with statements that make the characters weaker than they actually are, because we do this across the board. It is why you don't see any one making a 4C grimjoww CRT based off shinji's statement about if grimjoww is trying to destroy the sun with his GRC in cyfow ( i can get the exact scan for you if you think, i am lying but i am sure we all know that scan) because we follow consistent interpretations from kubo. Futhermore, we also know BASE candice strongest attacks, most notably electrucion is directly stated to surpass any normal lightning so that alone is a blatant contradiction to her being 8C by itself. Secondly, Askin would in fact die if he falls from that height and it has nothing to do with his durability, the distance between the seretei and the royal palace is far too vast that it takes HOURS for ichigo the god tier of the verse when it comes to stats to reach seretei at top speed and also there are 72 barriers that will kill anyone who doesnt have the oken, so yes he would in fact die. Lastly, Gremmy doesn't have a fixed durability because his body is a product of his imagination and he says harder than steel not steel, even on site we dont scale gremmy's body to the power of the visionary so there was no need to bring that up or was is it a reference to zaraki who is known for holding back against opponents and then proceeded to cut gremmy in that same strike? All in all, these part of argument in entirely in bad faith and feels like it is meant to be misleading to people who don't know the show that much.


Moving on to this section of your argument, First of all are we really expecting kubo to be knowleageble in every piece of science that entails atmospheric conditions at certain heights in the atmosphere that isn't outerspace? i you mean you would have an argument if this was popular piece of trivia everyone knows about but that is the opposite, This is a knowledge that barely any mangaka considers when writing a manga that entails supernatural feats and is inherently fiction, it is okay to suspend your beliefs. Second of all, other reishi worlds like Soul society don't even follow this logic because explosions happen at attitudes wey higher than even what the OP is talking about. Ichigo can unleash getsuga tenshos bombs at millions of km above the seretei so shouldn't the logic be extended to a similar world made of reishi. So not only is the knowledge of atmospheric conditions not known to the author in a fictional story but the author even completely disregards it by having people fight at even higher altitudes in other similar reishi spaces.


As for your last paragraph, Can we even use this as a genuine argument?, when the person who put kenpachi there has the power to make anything, he imagines a literal reality lol. Gremmy literally put kenpachi in an outerspace HE created and imagined the effects happening to him inside said space so obviously, he would be affected. And even if he couldn't survive outerspace none of your argument shows that the same rule would apply to reishi world like hueco mondo, when it doesn't apply to soul soceity a high attitudes.

This is a blessing to read. But also, considering this is a built in rule, this whole thread should be disregarded as irrelevant.

 

[KillerNerd007]

I haven't agreed to a size change specifically to 5 KM. The OP is just listing our calcs that would need to be revised once a new size is agreed upon.

What I agree with at the very least is removing the current size and any calcs that depend on it.

The thing is, its already addressed in the profiles themselves, 10 other staff members agree with this as well.

Until anyone in here can give a valid argument as to why we should ignore it, let's move on with our days.

 

[Damage3245]

The thing is, its already addressed in the profiles themselves, 10 other staff members agree with this as well.

Until anyone in here can give a valid argument as to why we should ignore it, let's move on with our days.

The profiles are not set in stone. You can move on from this thread if you wish, nothing is stopping you.

 

[KingTempest]

@Deceived3596 do you want time to see if you can make time to formulate an argument or you don't care?

 

[Deceived3596]

@Deceived3596 do you want time to see if you can make time to formulate an argument or you don't care?

A couple days of extra time should suffice, like a day or two if acceptable. While it has been widely accepted, I don't think the pro-status quo position has been sufficiently represented. There has been a lot of back and forth, but most of it has been quick, reactive, surface-level responses. I haven't seen a detailed, dedicated post expounding on the position thoroughly, and comprehensively refuting inaccuracies I believe are present in the blog, that are furthered by other arguments made by different individuals.

 

[Mommyleona]

Should this be a calc group discussion? Feels like a more crt kind of thing

I'm leaning towards agreeing, as the Nel statement is pretty much the ONLY thing supporting the size, the distance you can get from that timeframe, as said above, can vary based on multiple factors too

Я может тупой, но давать половине персонажей континенты/планетоиды. когда никто из них даже и острова не сломал, не особо является лично для меня особо хорошей идеей

шшш, тут говорят по английски

 

[Agnaa]

This is the only compromise me and Damage are willing to make here, since Ghost said this is a Calc Group thread, and we’re the only ones here, I expect this to be respected.

Man what the ****.

First y'all ignore my response to these arguments, and then you pretend like I'm not even in the thread.

The thread seems to have been unanimously accepted by staff then (I presume based on Agnaa's last comment calling the argument "damning" but he can correct me if I am misreading him).

Yeah, given how there wasn't a response contending what they said, I'd have to believe that the inconsistent "pillars" are actually completely different structures.

I haven't agreed to a size change specifically to 5 KM. The OP is just listing our calcs that would need to be revised once a new size is agreed upon.

What I agree with at the very least is removing the current size and any calcs that depend on it.

I think that's a wack approach. Why revise the profiles twice, once to remove the calcs, and once to re-add them, when we could just recalc them now and swap directly to those new ones?

 

[ichimojii]

we do this for the other two as well wdym

theres a reason why the size of the hidden leaf is controversial and isnt orders of magnitude bigger than it currently is or why we dont use the mountain size summons or choji statements.

Even One Piece had a large amount of its calc bulldozed for this same reason.

Well from what I see it says konoha is 62 km using the forset of death size statement as a reference. Visual konoha is nowhere near 62km and is closer to 1km.

You can literally see earth's curvature from frost country. Forest country has mountains you can count and measure. Using that you can get naruto's earth size far lower then our earth size.
Here

Wano from one piece is visually 1-2km yet its accepted size 1000s of km base on statements

So i don't see why all of sudden visuals are prioritize over statements

 

[M3X_2.0]

First y'all ignore my response to these arguments, and then you pretend like I'm not even in the thread.

There is nothing to respond to you. You said you don't think visuals should take priority, we think it should. Or at least, not use visuals when they're claimed to be inconsistent, even for calcs. It's just people disagreeing, what do you expect from us?

 

[Damage3245]

Well from what I see it says konoha is 62 km using the forset of death size statement as a reference. Visual konoha is nowhere near 62km and is closer to 1km.

You can literally see earth's curvature from frost country. Forest country has mountains you can count and measure. Using that you can get naruto's earth size far lower then our earth size.
Here

Wano from one piece is visually 1-2km yet its accepted size 1000s of km base on statements

So i don't see why all of sudden visuals are prioritize over statements

Your examples from other verses are wrong, and not particularly relevant here. Don't derail the thread because we're not about to go picking through every issue with visuals and statements for every single verse inside just this one thread.

 

[ichimojii]

Your examples from other verses are wrong, and not particularly relevant here. Don't derail the thread because we're not about to go picking through every issue with visuals and statements for every single verse inside just this one thread.

How is it wrong? It's relevant becasue these are examples of statements being taken over visuals

 

[M3X_2.0]

How is it wrong? It's relevant becasue these are examples of statements being taken over visuals

And do you want to discuss One Piece and Naruto on a Blech thread?

 

[Agnaa]

There is nothing to respond to you. You said you don't think visuals should take priority, we think it should. Or at least, not use visuals when they're claimed to be inconsistent, even for calcs. It's just people disagreeing, what do you expect from us?

I didn't just say "I disagree", I gave an actual argument based on our general standards, that I'd hope y'all hold consistent views on

I disagree with this reasoning. I view it like video game graphics. Just because a character is shown as being 1/10th the size of a city, doesn't mean that destruction of half of that city should be put at only High 8-C. Especially if there are statements indicating that the city is actually large.

I don't think doing so is "using visuals to upgrade, and dismissing them when used to downgrade". Unless there are other cases here I'm missing. It's using statements to get some important raw values in a calculation, then using visuals to derive the rest, rather than starting from visuals alone.

No staff members responded to this.

 

[Damage3245]

No staff members responded to this.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to video game graphics. The issue is not so glaring as "Bleach characters are 1/10th the size of Las Noches"; it's more like there is no corroborating hard evidence beyond narrative vibes to support the calculated size of Las Noches currently. It's worth remembering that this isn't a case of "The structure was directly stated to be 100 km long, whereas visually it's more like 10 km long." There is no direct size statement. We have a statement of a timeframe it would take to walk to destination an unknown distance away, that distance is then calculated based on both that statement and additional assumptions.

So it's not just (to me) a matter of statement vs. visual. It's calculation vs. calculation(s). Which versions of the calculation has more evidence behind it, and more support? Well, that's the crux of the issue in my view.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I disagree with this reasoning. I view it like video game graphics. Just because a character is shown as being 1/10th the size of a city, doesn't mean that destruction of half of that city should be put at only High 8-C.

Your video game example doesn't work, 3D models and 2D sprites don't suddenly change from a scene to another, the model has the same size for the whole game, unless it's for artistic purposes like this.

Especially if there are statements indicating that the city is actually large.

There are not. Actually, every single time the structure is shown it's more likely to have 10 to 15km in size, with characters being near it and not being completely overshadow by it. The only statement they have is the 3 day walk one, which is one single statement that isn't even about distance, it's a timeframe, and the distance you can get from it can vary a lot with multiple different variables such as the speed used for the walk, breaks and multiple different obstacles or constraints.

I don't think doing so is "using visuals to upgrade, and dismissing them when used to downgrade".

It's literally what's happening. Literally:

using the real or original meaning of a word or phrase:
They were responsible for literally millions of deaths.
We live literally just round the corner from her.

They are using the size of the structure to calculate feats while they claim Kubo's art is inconsistent and shouldn't be used to dismiss the calculated size, because apparently, it's smaller than what it looks like. It can't get more literal than that.

Unless there are other cases here I'm missing. It's using statements to get some important raw values in a calculation, then using visuals to derive the rest, rather than starting from visuals alone.

The visuals they claim it can't be used.

Is it really true that all of Candice/Askin/Gremmy's feats above Building level are based on pure visuals, with no statements ever indicating that they could/have destroyed anything larger than a building? I'm not familiar with Bleach, but this certainly wouldn't be my default assumption.

Candice has a 5 Gigajoules statement for her attacks, the argument they made is you can't use one statement for a timeframe (and then to calc the size) but ignore statements that would go against what they think the verse has in terms of AP.

Are you satisfied now? Nothing will change, we just disagree and your argument doesn't counter ours. You just have a different view.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to video game graphics. The issue is not so glaring as "Bleach characters are 1/10th the size of Las Noches";

I think it really is like that sort of thing, because the issue ultimately comes from two panels where objects are a few pixels in size, when they should be 1 or fewer pixels in size. That's a common issue with showing size in drawn media; they want to show that something is large, but still have recognisable things as a point of reference. Unless they do some ultra-zoom stuff, these sorts of contradictions come up fairly frequently.

it's more like there is no corroborating hard evidence beyond narrative vibes to support the calculated size of Las Noches currently. It's worth remembering that this isn't a case of "The structure was directly stated to be 100 km long, whereas visually it's more like 10 km long." There is no direct size statement. We have a statement of a timeframe it would take to walk to destination an unknown distance away, that distance is then calculated based on both that statement and assumptions.

There are not. Actually, every single time the structure is shown it's more likely to have 10 to 15km in size, with characters being near it and not being completely overshadow by it. The only statement they have is the 3 day walk one, which is one single statement that isn't even about distance, it's a timeframe, and the distance you can get from it can vary a lot with multiple different variables such as the speed used for the walk, breaks and multiple different obstacles or constraints.

I'm fine with taking safer assumptions on how the timeframe turns into distance, but I think no matter how we slice it there'd still be a fair bit of a gap, so we can't really get to agreement from that.

Your video game example doesn't work, 3D models and 2D sprites don't suddenly change from a scene to another, the model has the same size for the whole game, unless it's for artistic purposes like this.

Not fully true (characters can have different models/sprites for different contexts, and have them be resized), and not fully relevant (different scenes can still be representing similar perspectives, but cause issues with size scaling).

And yeah, it's for artistic purposes, but so is showing a recognisable feature of a structure as 6 pixels, instead of a potentially more accurate 1 pixel.

It's literally what's happening. Literally:

They are using the size of the structure to calculate feats while they claim Kubo's art is inconsistent and shouldn't be used to dismiss the calculated size, because apparently, it's smaller than what it looks like. It can't get more literal than that.

The visuals they claim it can't be used.

I think you're just misinterpreting. They're just saying that the visuals are a worse basis than statements for size. So they use statements where they can, and visuals where they can't. That is perfectly coherent.

Candice has a 5 Gigajoules statement for her attacks, the argument they made is you can't use one statement for a timeframe (and then to calc the size) but ignore statements that would go against what they think the verse has in terms of AP.

I mean yeah, I would treat that Candice statement as an anti-feat. Whether she should actually be downgraded just depends on how well-supported the higher feats she scales to are, and how consistent her scaling to those other feats is.

Are you satisfied now? Nothing will change, we just disagree and your argument doesn't counter ours. You just have a different view.

I think there is a little bit of room for worthwhile discussion, but fair enough. Drop it if you so desire, esp. since we already agree on the outcome.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I think you're just misinterpreting. They're just saying that the visuals are a worse basis than statements for size. So they use statements where they can, and visuals where they can't. That is perfectly coherent.

It is not. You can't attribute your calculated size to a structure that visually doesn't match the size you calculated, if you can't even calculate size from said visuals.

The logic only works if both sources are pointing in the same direction. If the visual contradicts the statement-based size, you can't just dismiss it, because even if the visual is too inconsistent to calc from, it's still clear enough to show the calculated size doesn't fit what's on screen. You're selectively ignoring visuals only when they're inconvenient, which isn't a methodology, it's just picking whatever supports your conclusion.

I think there is a little bit of room for worthwhile discussion, but fair enough. Drop it if you so desire, esp. since we already agree on the outcome.

We agree on the outcome but for different reasons, and we need to align on that.

Not fully true (characters can have different models/sprites for different contexts, and have them be resized), and not fully relevant (different scenes can still be representing similar perspectives, but cause issues with size scaling).

And yeah, it's for artistic purposes, but so is showing a recognisable feature of a structure as 6 pixels, instead of a potentially more accurate 1 pixel.

Sure, but that same logic applies to the travel statement too. If artistic purposes explain why a feature looks bigger than it is, they can also explain why the structure looks smaller than the statement says, meaning neither the visual nor the statement is inherently reliable on its own. And between a vague 3-day travel statement that requires you to assume a travel speed, and consistent visuals showing the structure at a fraction of the calculated size, the visuals are actually the less assumption-dependent source here.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Twas busy in a tiring shift but now I'm free
Wow you guys all clutched up in my absence, wonderful work thanks guys!
A few comments to certain people, I'm gonna be responding more from this page in a bit, and I'm fine with letting this marinate for a day or two to allow Deceived a chance to comment

Spoiler

ShatkBook01​

also it's literally accepted on the Bleach page to take statements over visuals.

So by Kubo's own word, backgrounds don't matter much, and it's character interactions that matter. Furthermore, they only work to show relative locations, or where a character is in relation to said location. This means statements >>> visuals, through Kubo's philosophy. Taking visuals over statements is a stance that directly goes against Kubo's storytelling style, and you'd be deliberately trying to not participate in his story how he wants it. Hence, we should default to the highly consistent statements, which are shown below in the true size section.

CHEEKS, respectfully this argument is so bad, this quote does not REMOTELY mean what you think it means I want you to examine this statement carefully, it says one thing and then the next statement reaches to the high heavens in it's interpretation, it is his style to add a blank background during character interactions because it is a tool that helps signify and emphasize the scene that's happening at the current moment that's all it is, he didn't say screw locations im too incompetent to draw shit, this is an excuse that does not hold weight when it comes to a landscape art of las noches, because there are no characters or dialogues it can't take away the reader's attention from anything else, the only reason this scene is showcased was to emphasize the scale, location and atmosphere, that is it


What it means : Kubo has a preference in art style
What it DOES not mean : Kubo said forget art & glaze one-off statements that conflict with every other possible thing in the story

---

KillerNerd007​

Put in disagree. These arguments are bad and not worth looking for an update. I don't feel like elaborating because I don't think I can add anything anybody from like 5 to 10 years ago hasn't already said.

Unfortunately that is not how it works, if you disagree with a CRT you HAVE to add arguments especially if the opposing people do not believe they were countered previously, if you say an argument is bad and are unable to back it up with anything, it becomes a wasteful comment that achieves nothing, it wastes my time, it wastes your time and everyone else that's present, it's not gonna help you shut down the arguments and I won't be adding you to the count because I'm only counting staff

I might as well start counting the number of obstructions done. Like obstruction of justice type shit.

Aside from your obvious claims of "oh it's totally debunked before" you add these types of things, it's lame and cringe, while it's not breaking the rules it's just derailing with emotionally charged comments, if I was present when this was going on, I'd tell you to quit or ask staff to delete your comments, you're adding nothing of worth making it harder for others to evaluate, not cool bro.

So we close this whole thread since now you have to do something else entirely. This specific thread is legit just stuff already addressed in the Bleach page. Simple as that.

This isn't a discussion rule that exists in the rules for bleach or wiki specific, we don't have to do anything

We are using it to determine the scale of a location. Calcs are a different case together.

Yeahhhh now it is different huh

---

Nel's Reliability​

Now this part is my personal opinion, I never pushed the narrative that Nel is unreliable, I believe the statement is made for worldbuilding rather than actually scaling the size of the structure, it's invalid because it's got hit with enormous undeniable contradictions, I also brought up previously that she is not a word of god figure, this is not saying she's lying or does not know anything, it means the statement isn't rooted in total objectivity the way the >30m pillar was, a statement if its reinforced multiple times could be valid, but her statement alone is not enough to qualify for something of an upgrade as this, especially if there is counter evidence

---

Ecronics​

I disagree with the last bit I don't think Kubo was considering how the atmosphere behaves in his battle shonen manga about a kid with a large kitchen knife
For what it's worth I agree with the argument overall as this convinced me. There is simply too much evidence to consider the pillars being that wide. Certainly enough to discard a throwaway statement.

He does actually, sometimes laws of physics get applied subconsciously, gravity and other things come to mind naturally when writing fiction and makes people evade those in storytelling, Kubo isn't a ******** guy clearly and this is something he did implement later in the series itself, he would know the repercussions brought forth by such high sizes as these are limiters he himself set on his characters, an author won't know of limitations he put on his own cast? also you're not supposed to scale based on what the author could have thought, you're supposed to scale based on truth, objective showings and consistency, lastly if kubo did not consider atmospheric pressure and hypoxia or gas shape in the mesosphere, WHY do you think he could have thought up the 250 km diameter? it might as well be a world building addition not meant to be taken as end all be all. The worst thing we can do is speculate on what the author could have thought as opposed to what is actually shown.

---

Infinite9Luck​

I don't see any reason why we should ignore Nel's statement (which is not a Kid btw) when it is written by Kubo, the same way the Seireitei statement was written. The blog post doesn't really give any good reason except the inconsistent visuals, which is something we have been known for years.

Spoiler: Translation

技術開発局に辿り着いた更木剣八は、敵が逃げたと知るや、襲撃を受けているというこの門に目標を変えたらしい。門から門まで歩いて十日はかかると言われている広大な瀞霊廷の中を走り続け、通常では考えられない速度でこちらに接近していたのだ
"Kenpachi Zaraki, having reached the Department of Research and Development, apparently learned that the enemy had fled and changed his target to this gate, which was said to be under attack. He had continued running through the vast Seireitei — said to take ten days to walk from gate to gate — and was approaching them at a speed that would normally be unthinkable."

The author is clearly trying to establish a size through these statements, saying no is like ignoring what he write on the manga, especially since they are given by characters multiple times. Just dismissing them is silly. It is repeatedly shown, and even stated on blog pages, that for Bleach we take statements over visuals for size and that has been discussed over years.
However, I do see the issue with some calculations that rely on pixel scaling as @Damage3245 said. But in that case, the calculation should be fixed, not necessarily the size downgraded by dismissing the statements, which were written by Kubo.

WHY the hell do y'all keep running to the Seretei, this is not about the Seretei, quit showing things for the seretei, you can't take evidence from one thing and pretend it speaks for everything else
Also more numbers of timeframe statements does not equate to author trying to use it for sizing portrayal he can use distance statements like he did with the pillars, it can be simply for worldbuilding

 

[Agnaa]

It is not. You can't attribute your calculated size to a structure that visually doesn't match the size you calculated, if you can't even calculate size from said visuals.

The logic only works if both sources are pointing in the same direction. If the visual contradicts the statement-based size, you can't just dismiss it, because even if the visual is too inconsistent to calc from, it's still clear enough to show the calculated size doesn't fit what's on screen. You're selectively ignoring visuals only when they're inconvenient, which isn't a methodology, it's just picking whatever supports your conclusion.

If both point in different directions, then the text is more deliberate and less prone to these sorts of mistakes, and so should be given priority. It's a lot harder to accidentally write "3 days travel" when you mean "2 hours travel", than it is to accidentally draw elements such that a complex visually appears smaller than you intended. Especially when taking into account factors like the artist's illustrations clearly having other size inconsistencies (can't confirm this one myself), or the size contradiction coming from one of the most unreliable forms of pixel-scaling (that being, involving extremely tiny features).

I think it's a real stretch to call this a contradiction/hypocrisy/inconsistency thing. It's not "selectively ignoring visuals when convenient", it's "ignoring visuals when there is an alternative". Shit like this doesn't have a statement alternative, as far as I know.

I'm not "picking whatever supports my conclusion". I do not give a **** whether Bleach is Tier 6 or Tier 8.

Sure, but that same logic applies to the travel statement too. If artistic purposes explain why a feature looks bigger than it is, they can also explain why the structure looks smaller than the statement says, meaning neither the visual nor the statement is inherently reliable on its own. And between a vague 3-day travel statement that requires you to assume a travel speed, and consistent visuals showing the structure at a fraction of the calculated size, the visuals are actually the less assumption-dependent source here.

If you think the travel speed/time assumptions are wrong, I'm open to that discussion. I would run a recalc with a more conservative travel time estimate, but the existing calcs are circular garbage that don't actually show how that value was derived (Hell, why the **** are the values 3400m and 1.8m being AVERAGED to get a "fair value"??? One of those is obviously just wrong!!!!!)

 

[KillerNerd007]

The profiles are not set in stone. You can move on from this thread if you wish, nothing is stopping you.

Well I prefer to be truthful and honest. And do you have a reason for what you say?

 

[M3X_2.0]

If both point in different directions, then the text is more deliberate and less prone to these sorts of mistakes, and so should be given priority. It's a lot harder to accidentally write "3 days travel" when you mean "2 hours travel", than it is to accidentally draw elements such that a complex visually appears smaller than you intended. Especially when taking into account factors like the artist's illustrations clearly having other size inconsistencies (can't confirm this one myself), or the size contradiction coming from one of the most unreliable forms of pixel-scaling (that being, involving extremely tiny features).

I think it's a real stretch to call this a contradiction/hypocrisy/inconsistency thing. It's not "selectively ignoring visuals when convenient", it's "ignoring visuals when there is an alternative". Shit like this doesn't have a statement alternative, as far as I know.

I'm not "picking whatever supports my conclusion". I do not give a **** whether Bleach is Tier 6 or Tier 8.

The "text is more deliberate" argument cuts both ways, yes, it's hard to accidentally write "3 days" when you mean "2 hours", but it's equally easy to write "3 days" as a narrative device with no intention of establishing an exact in-universe distance, especially in a medium where travel time is routinely used for pacing rather than worldbuilding precision. You'd need to establish that the statement was actually intended as a size reference, not just a storytelling beat.

On the pixel-scaling point, sure, scaling from tiny features is unreliable for getting an exact number, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the visual is clearly inconsistent with 200+km regardless of measurement precision. You don't need an accurate calc to see that the structure doesn't look anywhere near that size. "The calc might be slightly off" and "the visual outright contradicts the statement" are very different problems.

And if the artist already has other size inconsistencies, that actually weakens the statement too, it means the work doesn't maintain size consistency in general, so treating one travel-time statement as a reliable size anchor is a stretch.

If you think the travel speed/time assumptions are wrong, I'm open to that discussion. I would run a recalc with a more conservative travel time estimate, but the existing calcs are circular garbage that don't actually show how that value was derived (Hell, why the **** are the values 3400m and 1.8m being AVERAGED to get a "fair value"??? One of those is obviously just wrong!!!!!)

 

[Agnaa]

The "text is more deliberate" argument cuts both ways, yes, it's hard to accidentally write "3 days" when you mean "2 hours", but it's equally easy to write "3 days" as a narrative device with no intention of establishing an exact in-universe distance, especially in a medium where travel time is routinely used for pacing rather than worldbuilding precision. You'd need to establish that the statement was actually intended as a size reference, not just a storytelling beat.

Given the context, I think it is pretty clearly used to establish size, not as a storytelling beat to help with pacing. A character asks why bother breaking through, when they could just walk for three days to reach the gate. The other character says they probably wouldn't be let in, and that they lack the time for that. They don't actually spend three days walking there to give time for other plots to develop. It could've easily been any other duration, especially given the "they wouldn't just let us in" aspect, so that specific detail must have been chosen in that way with a size in mind.

Even if an exact distance isn't intended, a rough one definitely is. But you claim that the visuals significantly diverge from it, meaning that there would still be a tension between those two, even if we took a more conservative estimate.

And if the artist already has other size inconsistencies, that actually weakens the statement too, it means the work doesn't maintain size consistency in general, so treating one travel-time statement as a reliable size anchor is a stretch.

I don't think art size inconsistencies should be contagious to other indications of size in the series. We usually recognise independence of various aspects of media like that. Sometimes short stories or bonus 4koma are non-canon, sometimes guide books are inconsistent, sometimes interviews give wack answers, and we typically confine those issues to the source, not the subject matter.

 

[Deceived3596]

Affirming a statement that is explicitly describing a set location, with a measurable timeframe, as merely "storytelling", and thus has zero applicability when it comes to deriving a size is logically faulty--it does describe a location that is connected to the structure in question; it does describe a timeframe. Both of these derive a distance that is measurable when certain assumptions are applied alongside them. That's just objectively true.

 

[Dalesean027]

I'm with Agnaa here personally the statement is very clearly established a sense of scale and size

 

[Agnaa]

Trying to untangle these weird calcs, I think I've noticed a big issue with them as-is.

This calc (which plays a part in the values of a lot of these) just seems to assume that Las Noches has a perimeter of 720km. The supposedly accepted value is 229km. What is going on here?

EDIT: nvmlol, that was perimeter not diameter, 720km is the correct perimeter.

 

[M3X_2.0]

The option to quote isn’t appearing to me.

Given the context, I think it is pretty clearly used to establish size, not as a storytelling beat to help with pacing. A character asks why bother breaking through, when they could just walk for three days to reach the gate. The other character says they probably wouldn't be let in, and that they lack the time for that. They don't actually spend three days walking there to give time for other plots to develop. It could've easily been any other duration, especially given the "they wouldn't just let us in" aspect, so that specific detail must have been chosen in that way with a size in mind.

Even if an exact distance isn't intended, a rough one definitely is. But you claim that the visuals significantly diverge from it, meaning that there would still be a tension between those two, even if we took a more conservative estimate.

The context does make it more likely the author had size in mind, I’ll give you that. But “had size in mind” and “accurately depicted that size in the visuals” are two different things, which actually reinforces the inconsistency rather than resolving it. If the author intended the structure to be that large, then the visuals are just wrong, and we’re back to the same problem: the work has an internal contradiction, and you’re choosing to trust the statement over consistent visual depictions without a clear reason why one error is more acceptable than the other.

And on the “rough distance is definitely intended” point, sure, but a rough distance being intended doesn’t tell us which source is closer to that rough distance. If the visuals consistently put it at ~15km and the statement implies 200+km, those aren’t both “roughly the same ballpark with minor artistic distortion”. That’s an order of magnitude off, which is too large a gap to handwave as normal artistic variance.

I don't think art size inconsistencies should be contagious to other indications of size in the series. We usually recognise independence of various aspects of media like that. Sometimes short stories or bonus 4koma are non-canon, sometimes guide books are inconsistent, sometimes interviews give wack answers, and we typically confine those issues to the source, not the subject matter.

That analogy doesn’t hold. Short stories, 4koma, and guidebooks are separate sources that can be evaluated and dismissed independently because they’re discrete, identifiable pieces of content. Systematic visual inconsistency across the main work isn’t a separable source you can quarantine, it’s a property of the primary material itself. If the artist consistently draws the structure at a fraction of the statement-calculated size across multiple scenes, that’s not a contaminated external source, that’s the work contradicting itself internally. You can’t “confine the issue to the source” when the source in question is the manga/comic itself.

@Agnaa

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

The Seireitei size is derived the same way, although it has more statements for it since a lot of the plot takes place there.

Knowledgeable characters delivered both statements. Seireitei 7 days and Las Noches 3 days. Nel being in her child somehow making her more unreliable is ridiculous.

I seen a post someone got it at like 5km according to the visuals. Why would it take 3 days for superhuman people to walk 5km?

Atmospheric Physics, hypoxia, atmospheric pressure is just nonsensical padding adhering to absolute realism for a damn shonen manga rhat made no mention of this stuff to sound smart.

Think.