Regenerating off-screen

[Eficiente]

Some people seem to be under the belief that a character coming back from x amount of damage off-screen is assuming that said character was able regenerate from said damage, which is wrong; Unless proven otherwise, that character is coming back from the damage, assumptions would be to say that other character healed him when this was never implied. This sometimes is because some people thinks that Regenerationn is a power that only character with a demonstrated healing factor should have, which is a pretty one sided mentality.

Of course, this only becomes a problem when the type of regen a character demonstrates is somethings ridiculous like High-Mid or Low-Godly. But this is no excuse, coming back from any amount of damage qualifies as regen unless proven otherwise. Proven otherwise with, you know, valid arguments, I have seem someone trying to deny Low-Godly regen of a character by saying that other character may have revived said character. When this was never implied and there is no characters able to do that in its respective verse.

But this goes even worst when the damage the character takes is cartoonish or in games when some character seemly lose all of his body via exploiting, vanishing into nothing, burning and more. Which is still no excuse.

• If a character takes that type of cartoonish damage Toon Force may as well be a thing in his verse. Toon Force may or may not allow stuff such as all of this, the damage being cartoonish or a gag isn't necessarily a valid explanation deny the regen. Considering the consistency of the regen and the amount of toon force of the verse seems like a better way to judge those cases.
• And then games... If someone explodes in a movie it's fine, if someone explodes in a book it's fine, but if someone explodes in a game some people believe that this isn't fine. Only if they come back tho, if they don't then sure why not, they exploded.... Which is a pretty horrible logic. How is that judged? Does the exploration has to be graphic? At what point exploiting becomes applicable? Putting that situation in that kind of subjective thoughts that vary depending on each person is something that should not be done. As I said before, if you can provide evidence of the regen not being a thing via valid stuff in the verse you can prevent the character from getting regen, but if not then one should accept that coming back from anything off-screen is Regenerationn.

I would appreciate a dialogue or note elaborating this or whatever we may agree with in the Regenerationn page.

 

[Kirbyelmejor]

I agree with all of this

 

[TriforcePower1]

I don't see any problem here.

 

[YungManzi]

On one hand, I somewhat agree, but on the other hand...I don't...

I mean, if a random human character with no special abilities in an action TV series gets shot in the chest and comes back a day later in peak condition with no explanation (No visit to the hospital or even mention of recovery or scars), are we going to give that character Regenerationn? Even though it's never mentioned, shown, or even hinted at anywhere in continuity?

^^In said series, the character is always portrayed to be a human with 0 special abilities. Imo this is the rare example of when a character's actual ability is an outlier. Every other time the character has been injured, they have always bled and shed like any other average human


I'm sure if I look hard enough in games, movies, and T.V shows, I'll find at least 1 character that fits in this category....

Other than things like what I mentioned above, I pretty much agree with this.

 

[Eficiente]

Outliers still exist, yes. If MCU Loki or Thanos were the only ones with Low regen in their verse we would probably not take that as powers that they have.

 

[Antvasima]

It can be an issue of plot convenience, yes. For example, in western superhero comicbooks it used to be a convenience that villains seemingly died in one story, and then returned with no explanation in another.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Burden of proof is always on the person claiming a character has any ability, not on the person claiming it doesn't have it.

Without further information you should neither conclude that the character regenerated nor that a different character has special healing powers.

If the story doesn't bother telling you what the character is capable off or how something happened then you just don't know. Guessing it to fill plot holes is unjustified.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalk makes sense.

 

[Eficiente]

@Ant If we don't see the body, such as with the Joker, then they not have regen. If we see the body and it can't be proven that they didn't regenerated then they should have regen.

@DontTalk This is exactly what I want to avoid, the story doesn't need to tell me that, and we aren't guessing any plot hole. Simply showing the character ok after his damage is enough. As I said before, saying that they didn't regenerated is the only speculation.

 

[Ryukama]

I agree with Ant and DT.

However if a character explicitly has Regenerationn as a power and they came back from damage off screen, I still think it's worth considering a regen feat. But if they're never stated to have regen, never otherwise shown to have regen and it's simply a continuity issue, then no.

 

[Eficiente]

While I agree with outliers existing in this cases I disagree with this being the method to judge this.

• How about verses when there are a lot of characters never stated to have regen and regenerating off-screen becomes very consistent? Will we ignore every time that happens?
• How about verses with many characters of different physiologies, some explicitly show crazy regen and other are never stated to have regen; If those last ones regenerate off-screen will we assume that they not have regen? Is the consistency of the verse itself not enough?

 

[Eficiente]

Bump.

To give an example of that last case, in Kirby there are (at least) 3 characters who explicitly show High-Mid regen and 1 stated to have Low-Godly, and (at least) 2 characters who exploded and came back from that off-screen without showing regen outside of that. I don't think it would be fair to ignore those cases just because they supposedly never show regen, exposing a character getting severely harm is already something almost impossible given the nature of the games.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ryukama & DontTalkDT

What do you think?

 

[Ryukama]

I know Kirby has very little canon and story. A villain who was previously killed coming back really shouldn't be taken seriously unless there's an explicit explanation IMO.

Any of these Kirby characters who apparently explicitly show and are stated to have regen of course should get it listed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Question: Would a character who isn't seen to regenerate getting heavily injured, but no note of injury is mentioned either, would that consitute as regen? This is regarding novels, where there isn't really anything like this unless there is a literal statement.

 

[Eficiente]

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. Why is assuming that it's a continuity issue the correct way to act as opposite to making sense of what is presented to us? As I see it, doing that is to purposely ignore the events that the authors create.

 

[Ryukama]

If a character dies and literally comes back without any sort of explanation, then it is a continuity issue. What's next? Can I say that movie characters have reality warping and teleportation if they wear a different colored shirt between takes or an object in the background gets moved.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Ryukama.

 

[Eficiente]

@Ryu Such a remarkable situation does not need to be elaborated to not be a continuity issue, your example isn't remotely comparable and you know it.

 

[Ryukama]

The point remains that when a plot hole arises, you can't just patch it up by assuming a character has a superpower when nothing in the series suggests they do. If a character died and came back with literally no explanation as to how they did, then we shouldn't attribute it to anything besides continuity issues.

By your logic literally any plothole or continuity issue can be resolved by attributing a certain power to a certain character. Just like my example, which while a more extreme case than yours, shows. As DT said, "If the story doesn't bother telling you what the character is capable off or how something happened then you just don't know. Guessing it to fill plot holes is unjustified."

Heck. Why does it even have to be Regenerationn for this character? Why can't I assume that a villain's henchman just has a healing ability and restored that person? This explanation has equal evidence as yours does.

 

[Antvasima]

I still strongly agree with Ryukama, and think that we should close this thread.

 

[Ryukama]

Nah I want to at least allow people to respond before closing.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[TriforcePower1]

I think we can still use it to give higher regen to characters that have already shown it. Ban (NNT) already had several regen feats, but his Mid-High comes from regen off-screen.

 

[Eficiente]

One isn't assuming or guessing anything, if someone comes back from being blown into pieces then that character logically recovered from that, simple, no need to ignore on purpose how it's shown to us how that character was blown in pieces.

>Why can't I assume that a villain's henchman just has a healing ability and restored that person?

If the character has partners in the first place and doing so isn't beyond their capabilities, then yes.

We are already saying that it's ok if it has an explanation or if the character already has regen, I say that we should expand those limitations. If a character consistently comes back from major damage off-screen to the point when I can predict that happening in the future why must I accept every time that happens as a plot hole? If other characters in a verse have crazy regen why must I purposely ignore when a character who doesn't comes back from crazy stuff off-screen?

 

[Ryukama]

"One isn't assuming or guessing anything,"

Yes it is. If a character comes back with literally no explanation at all as to how they did so, then you saying it's because Regenerationn is by definition an assumption and a guess.

"If the character has partners in the first place and doing so isn't beyond their capabilities, then yes."

You just proved my point. With this method you can assume practically any power you want to fill a plot hole and all have equal evidence and validity. So why even go for Regeneration? Just assume another character has another power to explain this away. "And doing so isn't beyond their capabilities"? How do you even go about saying this would be beyond their capabilities? Cause they've never been shown or stated to have healing? But wait your whole point is it doesn't matter if these characters have never been shown or stated to have Regeneration. Also again by your logic you can fill literally any plot hole, inconsistency or unexplained circumstance with assuming someone in the story has some superpower.

"We are already saying that it's ok if it has an explanation or if the character already has regen, I say that we should expand those limitations."

Things like "having evidence for claims" and "not using headcanon explanations" aren't limitations.

"If a character consistently comes back from major damage off-screen to the point when I can predict that happening in the future why must I accept every time that happens as a plot hole?"

Kirby just doesn't really have a plot or continuity (or at least has a very simplistic one). And it's far from uncommon for media like this to have characters die in one instance and then come back fine another. I don't know how many times Bowser or his minions have died and come back to life. I know several cartoons that straight up have the entire planet get destroyed then next episode everything's fine. Can I say that planet earth itself has regen and so does every living being in these shows?

"If other characters in a verse have crazy regen"

That's irrelevant. This guy isn't those other characters. Those guys are actually stated and shown to have regen. This is like saying anyone in Marvel who died and came back with no explanation should have regen because this is the same verse with guys like Deadpool and Wolverine.

"why must I purposely ignore when a character who doesn't comes back from crazy stuff off-screen?"

It's not even like we're saying to ignore that this person came back from death. But as DT said, we just don't know how they did this. We can't attempt to explain something that is completely unexplained with an assumed superpower.

 

[Eficiente]

For the sake of my own credibility I'm going to stop, I don't have anything new to say. I'm leaving this thread open only to see if anyone else wants to leave a comment about it.

As for Kirby, I will later make a thread to remove the regen of some characters, including Kirby himself.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that we should close this.

 

[Ryukama]

@Eficiente Well it's just my honest opinion. I of course more than respect your opinion, respect you as a person and I am personally fine with whatever most people decide upon. Just giving my personal thoughts.

 

[Eficiente]

Thank you, should we leave a note or dialogue about this in the Regenerationn page or simply close this thread?

 

[Ryukama]

I don't think a note's necessary but it's whatever everyone else thinks.

 

[Antvasima]

I also do not think that it seems necessary.

 

[Kirby71]

I know Kirby has very little canon and story. A villain who was previously killed coming back really shouldn't be taken seriously unless there's an explicit explanation IMO.
Any of these Kirby characters who apparently explicitly show and are stated to have regen of course should get it listed.

>Kirby has very little canon or history, Kirby has not any plot or continuity.

NANI!? As a Kirby veteran, saying that for me is forbbiden, as saying, "Kirby's a kids game", if you research, you Will notice It, its getting on Dark Souls's level, and its rising even more. Ill try to speak at the Kirby thread itself.