• 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.
Eficiente

Eficiente

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
15,414
5,008
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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn levels via this supposed off-screen feats?

It is ultimately unharmful to mention this in the Regenerationn page, so, can we do just that?
 
Sorry I am a little confused. Was it your opponents who said there shouldn't be a note on the Regenerationn page?
 
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.
 
"We consider instances where characters recover from damage off-screen to be a demonstration of Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn."
 
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.
 
"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."?

I don't think it should have less than that.
 
It can also just be Note at the bottom of the page.
 
"Instances of characters being wounded and inexplicably recovering off screen should not be taken as evidence of Regenerationn 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.
 
I mean I was against the whole thing in that old thread so it kinda makes me look bad but ok.
 
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 because such cases are likely to be continuity errors rather than an intended demonstration of the character's capabilities. For reference, see this thread"
Click to expand...
Modified my note a bit.
 
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.
 
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."?
 
That's good. Do we need someone in particular approving this?
 
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.
 
Cartoons lacking continuity shouldn't be treated as a feat IMO
 
@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.
 
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 Regenerationn 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 Regenerationn and healed off screen that's entirely different. But this is essentially attributing a continuity error as a feat.
 
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
 
@Ryu The thread is more about if a note should be added to the Regenerationn page, rather than being another discussion of whether these types of feats are valid or not.
 
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 Regenerationn capabilities
 
Characters restoring themselves off screen for a gag just means that the Regenerationn 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.
 
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?
 
@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.
 
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.
 
I'm not complementing you. I am insulting myself

Anyway, what are your opinions on adding the note?
 
Anyways I don't know how the page should be worded but I think

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

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

Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eseseso
One Piece: Off-screen Anime Fight Revisions
Replies
30
Views
2K
Eseseso
Eseseso
StretchSebe
  • Locked
Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.
2 3
Replies
94
Views
5K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
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
Grimm's_Fortitude
Let's Talk About False Assassin
Replies
1
Views
639
Grimm's_Fortitude
Grimm's_Fortitude
Back
Top