• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Let's please talk about regenerating off-screen, again

Status
Not open for further replies.
@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.
 
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 said:
"We consider instances where characters recover from damage off-screen to be Regenerationn only when said characters already have or later shown to have Regenerationn, 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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn."
Click to expand...
 
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
 
This isn't a problem at all as we ask for proper context to be given. Which Garfield doesn't give.
 
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
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 Regenerationn 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.
 
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 Regenerationn 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.
 
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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn 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 "Regenerationn" because a reason was not stated or shown.
 
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.
 
The character having Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn doesn't even need to be it. That's the problem with asserting it as an actual ability this character has.
 
@Ryukama

You missed my point of my examples completely. I was more saying that "Regenerationn" 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.
 
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.
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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 Regenerationn.

Find something in which we either actually see Garfield regenerating on panel or it's stated he has Regenerationn. 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 Regenerationn.

If there is any instance of Garfield demonstrably or being stated to have Regenerationn of course I'd be happy to keep it on the profile.
 
Ryukama said:
Andytrenom said:
@Lap It's less about the Regenerationn feat being gag based and more about it being non existant. Gumball got to have Regenerationn for a gag feat, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Click to expand...
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 Regenerationn being added as an ability.
Click to expand...
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
 
We were, very close to finish this. Can we at least add what was already accepted? I guess I would be satisfied with that.
 
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.
 
I agree with ryu, if not clear enough
 
Andytrenom said:
"Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of Regenerationn 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."
Click to expand...
Can this, or something along those lines, be added then?
 
Sure, I'll go add it to the page
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eseseso
One Piece: Off-screen Anime Fight Revisions
Replies
30
Views
2K
Eseseso
Eseseso
  • Locked
Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.
2 3
Replies
94
Views
5K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
ThePrimalHunter
"The First Rule Of Fight Club Is, You Do Not Talk About Fight Club" (Fight Club CRT)
Replies
24
Views
965
Jeeeeepil123
Jeeeeepil123
Dark_Soul20189
Characters that don't need or doesn't deserve their regeneration
Replies
19
Views
2K
ProfectusInfinity
ProfectusInfinity
TheUnshakableOne
  • Locked
Delete this verse, please, and thank you :)
2 3
Replies
119
Views
8K
UchihaSlayer96
UchihaSlayer96
Back
Top