The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Pokémon Clubs (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   The Dragon's Den V.4 (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=231793)

dragoniteuser November 3rd, 2010 1:04 PM

Like you crossed, no it wouldn't be! XD
OK New topic:
What Dragon Pokemon could use an evolution?

Xilfer November 3rd, 2010 1:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkallab (Post 6266988)
Pikachu's never gonna evolve because:

1. It doesn't want to;
2. Pikachu is Pokémon's mascot.

To stay on topic, Pikachu dragon would be cool. No it wouldn't be.

Pikachu Dragon wouldn't be cool, but i could sprite one using fusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6267023)
Like you crossed, no it wouldn't be! XD
OK New topic:
What Dragon Pokemon could use an evolution?

hmmm, dunno, lots are already good as they are, but it would be cool if Shelgon had an alternate Evo.

dragoniteuser November 3rd, 2010 1:40 PM

To evolve into what?
I'd like to Aerodacty's evo, though.

tkallab November 3rd, 2010 1:42 PM

Evolving Aerodactyl would be the awesomest thing ever. And the most broken thing ever too.
Would it be Dragon-typed, I wonder?

dragoniteuser November 3rd, 2010 1:44 PM

DEEEEFINETLY!
I imagine it as a bigger and more badass version of Aerodactyl!
Could I be more accurate, I know...

tkallab November 3rd, 2010 1:51 PM

Put that on my list of things I promised to draw but never actually manage to make!

Xilfer November 3rd, 2010 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6267075)
To evolve into what?
I'd like to Aerodacty's evo, though.

Yeah aerodactyle (can't spell it)'s Evo would be cool.
I dunno, i bet gamefreak people could come up with something.

tkallab November 4th, 2010 7:27 AM

Is there any particular reason you think Shelgon needs an alternate evolution? Because it would him the first and only pseaudo-legendary with an alternate evolution, and Salamence looks cewl enough.

Time Guardian November 4th, 2010 8:12 AM

I could picture an evo for Aerodactyl happening, Besides, he's basically the only fossil pokemon without an evolution anyways.

An evo for Gyarados would be nice, maybe one that gets rid of his dual weakness, but I can't seem to imagine that one as clearly as the Aerodactyl. The rest I feel don't need any evos or any alternate ones at all.

Amore November 4th, 2010 9:39 AM

Guys...what is wrong with you? Do you want to effectively murder two of the coolest pokémon around?? If they have evos, they'll become so overused, and for good reason, as they'll pwn their pre-evos! (although I suppose they'd probably end up Ubers).

I think the artistic style has changed too much really...I mean, Electivire and Magmortar are a lot different from the rest of their families......dragons would be too different....

dragoniteuser November 4th, 2010 11:17 AM

True!
Just look at this abomination:
http://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/621_kurimugan_front_norm.png
And to think they call it a dragon...

Xilfer November 4th, 2010 12:12 PM

Yes, the artistic styles have changed a lot, but silly old Gamefreak dosen't have to make our Evos real, we can just sprite them or draw them.
and no i don't have any particular reason to evolve shelgon into something else, i just thought it would be cool, maybe Salamence's bro could cover for Salamence's weaknesses (if any) and make a good teamate in battle.

dragoniteuser November 4th, 2010 12:26 PM

OK, new topic:
Think of the coolest type combo (with Dragon, of course).

How about Dragon/Steel! Ignore Dialga, that "thing" isn't a dragon, it's an overgrown horse!

Amore November 4th, 2010 1:09 PM

Well, it's obviously not a horse....it's a deity that was assigned the dragon type because the only other appropriate types are normal and psychic....and we have only one normal-type legend, Arceus, and hundreds of psychics.

But yeah, another would be cool....on the other hand, I chose Diamond because he looks cool, and I don't want anything stealing his thunder.

dragoniteuser November 4th, 2010 1:32 PM

Dialga
http://www.legendarypokemon.net/images/dp_artwork/483.png
Toy horse
http://www.healthstones.com/farm_life_store/safari_toy_horses_models/safari_shetland_pony_toy_horse_model/safari_shetland_pony_toy_horse_model.jpg

Same thing!
But whatever it is, it's not a dragon! Just as Palkia!

Which is why I'd like us to vote on those two Pokemon.

Silhouette November 4th, 2010 1:35 PM

I think we need a fire/dragon type. Seriously.

EDIT: And for Dialga, try a bronchiosaurus or something along those lines. :P

tkallab November 4th, 2010 2:03 PM

Spoiler:
Reshiram is Dragon/Fire.


And I think Palkia is definitely a dragon. Dialga, I'm not sure... But not a horse. The only thing they have in common is that they have four legs.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 2:17 AM

Palkia is some kind of humanoid/alien thingy, there's absolutely NOTHING, not even a slightest thing that resemblens to dragons in it! Not-one-thing!

Mew~ November 5th, 2010 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6269992)
Palkia is some kind of humanoid/alien thingy, there's absolutely NOTHING, not even a slightest thing that resemblens to dragons in it! Not-one-thing!

Really? There has been alot of internet commotion that its head looks like a mans privet part. xD

I agree, I don't think they should be classed as dragons.

What about Reshiram? It looks like an overgrown chicken.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 3:48 AM

THANK YOU!!!
Reshiram is a bird, but we'll talk about that when the time comes, i guess...

Mew~ November 5th, 2010 4:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6270063)
THANK YOU!!!
Reshiram is a bird, but we'll talk about that when the time comes, i guess...

Chicken!! Its Dragon/Fire isn't it =P

Well anyway, I agree Dialga and Palkia cannot be dragon, theres nothing dragon about them, they are both um, just kinda, Aliens xD

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 4:27 AM

This one, on the other hand, I can see it as a some kind of mecha-dragon...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lg1tfparEBQ/THaK9nV2ZOI/AAAAAAAAAdo/xsnB2S7nybU/s320/imagesCAGV8B0W.jpg
So, Amore, shall we vote on Palkia and Dialga aswell?

Time Guardian November 5th, 2010 5:16 AM

I see no resemblance to Dialga and a Horse. And I would know a horse if I seen one considering that my mom collects model horses...

But looking things up, I think they both were intended to be based on dinosaurs instead. Which would make some sense in that concept. But again, they also have a few thigns that make them look draconic in my eye as well.

As for Zeakrom....he make me think of Metal Gear RAY for some reason. :/ Even though they both don't look remotely alike.

Halcyon November 5th, 2010 5:26 AM

I don't like Dialga and Palkia, so they are not dragons. LOL, my opinion is biased. >__>

tkallab November 5th, 2010 8:01 AM

Dialga and Palkia are dragons because all legendaries are. I say don't doubt the legendaries. By the way, I think you'd all be okay with Dialga being a dragon if he looked like this:

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/309/c/8/dialga_is_a_dragon_by_tkallab-d327irw.png

wolf November 5th, 2010 9:19 AM

In my opinion, all Dragon-types should be considered dragons because they're considered dragons in the game. Though, Altaria is no longer a dragon so this point is moot probably. Just my two cents.

Dialga isn't similar to a horse, other than being a quadruped. Dialga doesn't have any of the following: snout, mane, ears, hooves, fluffy tail, and fur.

Also, here's some support banners if you want to use them:

http://i53.*.com/33e258p.png
http://i53.*.com/210ekp2.png
http://i53.*.com/21lqqyq.png

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 11:11 AM

OK, tkallab, you practically changed nothing, and no matter what you do to it, Dialga is Dialga, and as such, it's not a dragon, no matter what Game-freak says!
And to think that a Pokemon is a dragon, cause it has Dragon type, is the worst argument you could probably have! Use your own head for God's sake! If game freak assigned dragon type to Meowth, would you consider it as a dragon?!
Besides, Mew~ already supported me in Dialga/Palkia matter, so by the current rules, we should vote on it!

tkallab November 5th, 2010 11:48 AM

...Yeah, it was dumb of me to think that would work. I was hoping that small change would be enough, and then say "It's such a small difference, it could also be a dragon without it," but I guess it backfired. Sigh... I wish I could veto this.

Can we at least leave Palkia alone? He's a dragon. Let me try my previous strategy again.
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/309/d/f/palkia_is_a_dragon_by_tkallab-d327wem.png

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 11:53 AM

Um... NO!
It's feet are... WHAT IS THAT ANYWAY?!?!?!
those arms sure aren't helping it one bit! And that Shoulder shield!! How on Earth is that dragonic?!

Amore November 5th, 2010 11:58 AM

Ok...well, personally, I'm going with TKallab...they're both dragons because they always have been, and also their signature moves are dragon-type! Giratina's not a conventional dragon either, but nobody disputes that...and its' signature move is ghost-type....

Also, I don't see how the Gen V dragons look "dragony" either.

However...moving on, and shutting you up before this club gets locked for obsessive arguing:

Voting Time!

You can vote only once for each dragon. And no, you don't have to vote on all of them, if you're impartial or something.

The dragons eligible for voting are:

- Milotic
- Tyranitar
- Dialga
- Palkia
- Giratina

Spoiler:


The latter two are there to head you off before you start arguing about them xD.

As usual, votes go to me via
pm, and I'll tally them....

Closing date is: November 30th, 23:59pm. I won't be online at that time, I'll simply ignore votes sent in December.

I will tell you the results, but if there are less than 5 votes on an individual pokémon, then that one will be declared null, and unlike what I've stated below, will be eligible for voting in January / February 2011. I just think it's not a good representation of the opinions of the majority if only one person votes.....




Oh, and finally, if I've missed any pokémon out of an act of idiocy, then yeah...I'll add them, and they'll be eligible for voting.



p.s. Yes, Lugia and Altaria had more than 5 votes (9 each, overall), so my new criteria works.

Oh, and one final thing: No more arguing / persuasion! I want people's opinions to be given time to form, rather than being intimidated by Draggy, Tkallab and, to a lesser extent, Xilfer.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 12:02 PM

Oh come on, there's nothing wrong with a little friendly "argumentation" between tkallab and me! ;)
OK, my votes are coming at once!

Amore November 5th, 2010 12:11 PM

Yes, I know, but I just know you'll bring out all sorts of argument now....and I want those legendaries to stay un-argumented, as nobody's previously had a problem with them...

I personally dont' see how a shark is a dragon, but let's not go into that until I get a good look at Gen V's offering

tkallab November 5th, 2010 12:19 PM

Alright, where is your proof dragon feet don't look like that? That dragons don't have shoulder plates and arm guards?
By the way, I think dragons are the kind of creature Game Freak can use their imagination on as much as they want, because, even if they turn out to be real, we know absolutely [b]nothing at all[/s] about dragons.

And, typing is very important. In my opinion, Dragon typed Pokémon are not to be removed from this club unless it's entirely obvious that they're somthing else. Like with Altaria, it was completely obvious he's a bird (to me, at least). Well, what are Dialga and Palkia? Don't say horse, because the only thing Dialga and a horse have in common, is that they both have four legs.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 12:19 PM

Trust me, it's offering barely anything good...
And I don't see garchomp's evo line as sharks. sure there are some similarities, but it's very dragonified IMO...

Amore November 5th, 2010 12:39 PM

Well, most references do say he's a shark...

For example, Gible's Pokédex entry lists his species as "Land Shark Pokémon", and Garchomp's head is similar to that of a hammerhead shark. He also has the fin (on the back) and tail of a shark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia

Appearance-wise, Garchomp seems like a cross between an European dragon and a hammerhead shark. It may have the genuine appearance of a land shark. It also seems to have the appearance of a jet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia

Appearance-wise, Gabite seems like a cross between a European dragon and a shark; it may be based on the Landshark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia

Appearance-wise, Gible seems like a cross between a European dragon and a shark. Gible and its evolved forms may also be a reference to the book series "Dougal Dixon's After Man". One species mentioned is a type of land shark that lives in desert regions.


dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 12:42 PM

No, no, you didn't get me...
I know that both pokedex and Bulbapedia says it's based on sharks, but it doesn't look that much of a shark to me, that's all...

tkallab November 5th, 2010 12:53 PM

Alright, so Garchomp is a mix between a dragon and a non-dragon, and it's considered a dragon.
Why not Palkia and Dialga? They're dragons, mixed with... Interdimensional fantasy dinosaurs? I dunno. But they're dragons.
By the way, Amore, can't you just veto the vote on Palkia and Dialga? There should not be messed with Dragon-typed legendaries.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 1:10 PM

No he shouldn't! The suggestion has been made, and it was supported by more then one member! And what's so special about legendaries that they should be off the hook?! The reason they have a Dragon type is BECAUSE they're legendary pokemon! And that's just WRONG!

tkallab November 5th, 2010 1:12 PM

Well then, what type should they be?

Amore November 5th, 2010 1:16 PM

Exactly.

This is like the "what makes a pokémon look like a pokémon, not a digimon?" (Whatever they are) argument.

No, Tkallab, I'm not lifting the vote, as two people have already voted. However, I've just noticed the Dialga argument looked very one-sided on the other page, so arguing is open again in order to give fairness and equality to all :D

this has nothing to do with me liking dialga and palkia ;)

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 1:27 PM

They should be pure Water and Steel type, although I don't see why Palkia is water, but nevermind!

tkallab November 5th, 2010 1:49 PM

I object. Obviously, there's no reason for Palkia to be Water-typed because it doesn't make any sense. And the only Pokémon that are pure Steel-typed have their bodies completely made of metal. I also think Dialga's Steel type makes as much sense as Palkia's Water type.
To be honest, I don't care about Dialga much, but Palkia is completely a dragon to me.

And of course people voted before a proper discussion was held.

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 2:06 PM

Please relate Palkia to any of these:


I could go on, but I think i've made my point...

Like you said before:
Owned.

Amore November 5th, 2010 2:07 PM

Yeah, bit of an oversight on my part, that voting bit. But, oh well, it hasn't backfired too much.

Personally, I think we might as well treat Dialga and Palkia as a single entity when dismissing them, or even merge Giratina and just vote the "Dragon Deity Trio" in or out, but I'm sure you all have opposition to that? Or do you?

If you have an opposition to my idea of pooling the votes on Dialga, Palkia and Giratina so that they all either stay or go out, then say so here. If you support it, also say so. I'll wait until 5 people have stated their opinion before changing anything.

However, please bear in mind that they all have as much right to be dragon as eachother...hence why I consider them "As one". Didn't they all come from the same egg? Or was that Uxie, Azelf and Mesprit?

Edit: You know how dragons are closely related to dinosaurs in most people's opinon? (I think they are if they've ever really existed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia
Dialga, along with Palkia, may be based on the Shinto legend of Izanami and Izanagi, who are said to have created one island with a spear, erected a pillar on it, and from there created the islands of Japan. Appearance-wise, Dialga is based on Amphicoelias, a genus of Late Jurassic dinosaur thought to contain the largest ever dinosaur species, A. fragillimus. Its type is Steel Possibly due to the hardness of diamonds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia
Palkia, along with Dialga, may be based on the Shinto legend of Izanami and Izanagi, who are said to have created one island with a spear, erected a pillar on it, and from there created the islands of Japan. Appearance-wise, Palkia is likely based after a European dragon combined with a pearl. The presence of fins in their back, the fish-like head and the pearls are possibly the reason for its Water type. Like Dialga's origin possibly from the largest sauropod dinosaur, Amphicoelias, Palkia may be based on another sauropod, the bipedal Plateosaurus.

That one even mentions dragons....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulbapedia
Giratina is possibly based on a basilisk. In the Altered Forme, the wings may be based on a bat's, and its body has an insect-like, six-legged feature, but its posture is similar to a sauropod. Its Origin Forme has a body similar to a serpent, while the six protrusions on its body may be based on a scorpion's stinger. However this Forme also shares physical traits with the Amphitere, a European dragon-like creature with wings but no legs

Again, it mentions dragons....

dragoniteuser November 5th, 2010 2:10 PM

i don't know about that Amore... IMO Giratina is different in many ways than Palkia and Dialga, both in design aswell as their nature(not Jolly, adamant or something like that) and Pokedex entry...

Amore November 5th, 2010 2:14 PM

Look at the edits to my post, mate. I can see similarities in their designs, typing, mythology.....although Giratina's the "bad" one as it was banished xD

Spinosaurus November 5th, 2010 2:44 PM

If you consider Aerodactyl a dragon, then why not Dialga? Dialga is probably a dinosaur too. :|

Palkia is obviously a dragon.

wolf November 5th, 2010 3:02 PM

Shouldn't Kingdra, Vibrava, and [email protected] be added to the vote since they're not dragons ([email protected] is debatable I guess)? By the way, Dragon-type should replaced with just dragon in the first post to prevent any confusion.

tkallab November 5th, 2010 3:05 PM

I tried to post this some time ago, but there was some major lag. Anyway, this one's for you, draggy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkallab
Even if dragons exist, which I doubt, there is no proof for this. Also, no one knows what dragons look like, because no one has ever officialy seen one. Because of this, an artist or any other person can picture a dragon in any way they want.


Amore November 5th, 2010 3:17 PM

And by that, I should expect a load of people begging for Altaria to be let back in....but they won't, because Draggy has more power than the rest of us put together....(Dragonite is the ultimate non-legendary pokémon, after all :P)

But good one for posting that! It's a very good self-quotation...

tkallab November 5th, 2010 3:49 PM

Haha! Quoting yourself is the hardest, because you still have to decide what to say by yourself! Did that make sense? Probably not.

Well, to me, Altaria was a special case. I promise you, if Game Freak didn't make him Dragon-typed, no one would think it was off. They'd see him as just another boring Normal/Flying Pokémon.
And you can't say something isn't a dragon because you've seen no other people portray a dragon in the same way, but in my opinion you can say something isn't a dragon because it's undeniably something else.

Halcyon November 5th, 2010 5:40 PM

I would be really happy if they just gave Altaria a pure Flying typing. It doesn't look 'normal' to me at the very least.

Tribal Ebony November 6th, 2010 12:50 AM

May I please join? I love dragon types!

tkallab November 6th, 2010 2:29 AM

Why not, Halcyon? It works for Swablu.

Oh, and welcome here too, Tribal Ebony! You'll be added as soon as Amore sees your post!

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 3:36 AM

Well I tried to answer all of your questions yesterday, but the damn server was too busy(why does it always cut me off?? :( )

@ Amore
Yeah I know that Giratina is the "bad" one, which kinda goes in it's favour as a dragon...
Now about those origins... Sure i can see Dialga as a dinosaur, it acctually makes a lot of sence, but dinosaurs are in no way the same thing as dragons! They are connected in the same way as we are to rats or horses, and don't forget that!
And like I said before, I do like Bulbapedia's origin's, but I don't always agree with them! If those two are based on Japan mithilogy, how on Earth does that make them dragons?!

Looks like I have three oponnents in this disscussions! :D This ought to be interesting!
@tkallab
Well I noticed that not many of you here are familiar with evolution, or how it works, I'm not gonna explain it here, cause it would take me two pages...
It's true that Dragons, if they existed (they sure did, I told you that...), they evolved from the same froup of animals as Dinosaurs did. Therefore they had SOME similarities, but they were also very different. Thus you can't say that Dinosaurs and Dragons are the same thing, or that one kind can be understood as another.
When you say that we don't know what they looked like, you can be more wrong! There are many drawings, detailed descriptions, even anytomy scetches about dragons, so rest assure, we DO know what they looked like! Those pictures I've posted on the previous page are just SOME of examples on how dragons looked like.
If you crosscheck those with pictures of Palkia and Dialga, you'll clearly see that there just aren't any similarities between Palkia and Dialga, and dragons!

*Now I've gotta rest my fingers for a while!*

Halcyon November 6th, 2010 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkallab (Post 6271992)
Why not, Halcyon? It works for Swablu.

I didn't say Swablu. It can remain as its Normal/Flying typing. It is just that Altaria looks too awesome to have a Normal typing. >___<

Amore November 6th, 2010 4:00 AM

I can agree. However I don't think it was deserving of being the first pure flying-type. I would've been happy if that was just Arceus holding a Sky Plate.

Also, Dragoniteuser, the fact is, that dragons are all going to have been distorted by exaggerations, like most mythical creatures (I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm saying none have been seen since the invention of the printing press, or they would've been more widely known to be real).

And we all use Bulbapedia as it's the most accurate source.

Oh, and finally, all your pictures are really modern ones. Show us the incredibly old ones, and you'll get more respect.

EDIT: Welcome Tribal Ebony! Please check the first two posts to understand just what the hell is going on, and then either read the last ten pages or so, or just vote blindly on what you believe with your heart!

tkallab November 6th, 2010 4:28 AM

Draggy, although I respect your theory about dragons existing, there is absolutely no scientific proof for this. There is no proof of the pictures of dragons being accurate either.

Oh, and I've been meaning to reply to this for a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkallab (Post 6270747)
Can we at least leave Palkia alone? He's a dragon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6270760)
Um... NO!
It's feet are... WHAT IS THAT ANYWAY?!?!?!
those arms sure aren't helping it one bit! And that Shoulder shield!! How on Earth is that dragonic?!

Let's reflect on Garchomp, shall we? Ahum...
Those things on its head... What's up with those?
And his arms look weird too! What are those fins on its arms? And his hand is only one claw? And that star on his forehead! How are those a dragon's traits?

Amore November 6th, 2010 4:45 AM

Actually...the fins are because he's a shark, which is an aquatic creature xD.

On his back, he has a dorsal fin (I think that's what it's called), his head is akin to that of a hammerhead shark, and his tail is like a tiger sharks' tail (trust me, I've seen the real thing).

Those fins on his arms are like the fins on sharks' sides........but the fact that he has arms, legs and feet makes him look incredibly weird. Hence how on the other page, I stated he has about as much right to be a dragon as Altaria (Which I still consider a dragon). And if you dispute Dialga and Palkia (for some reason, the general consensus is that Giratina's obviously a dragon and we must be mistaken for thinking otherwise), you should also dispute Garchomp.

However, I've had an opinion put forward, and wondered what you guys though....do you think anything dragon-typed should automatically be in this group, and we just dispute non-dragon-typed dragons? (bear in mind before answering, Draggy, that your beloved Onokusu looks nothing like any of the dragons you've shown us, and definitely nothing like any I've ever seen). And yes, I've seen a real dragon. It's called a Komodo Dragon. It has a large resemblance to a dinosaur!

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 4:53 AM

Fine, you want old, you'll get old:


All theese are over 1000 years old! Is that old enough Amore?

*EDIT
OK then tell me this, the first time you've seen Garchomp, what did you think? Was it, "Oh look, a new shark, or was it, wow, a dragon"?
And when you've seen Dialga or Palkia... I'm sure that dragon wasn't the first thing that crossed your mind! It was probably WTF! LOL

tkallab November 6th, 2010 5:16 AM

They all were dragons to me! But Garchomp was a shark dragon while Dialga and Palkia were like interdimensional dragons.

I think Dragon is the type the creators use for divine beings that look savage, while Psychic is used for intelligent divine deings. Thoughts on this?

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 5:35 AM

Hm... I could agree with this, tkallab. It acctually goes along with one of my previous sentences that Dialga and Palkia are dragons just cause they're legendaries...

tkallab November 6th, 2010 5:37 AM

But it still means I think they're dragons, mind you.

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 5:48 AM

No, not really! It means that bosses at Gamefreak say they're Dragons. I don't see any of them around here... And tell me please, what makes them experts?!

tkallab November 6th, 2010 5:49 AM

Well, they make the Pokémon, for starters...

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 5:56 AM

No, Ken Sugimori, the animators, the producers, writers, ect. make Pokemon.
Those guys I've benn talking about are collecting the money, that's all!

tkallab November 6th, 2010 6:04 AM

Well, in that case Ken Sugimori and the other guys also decide the typings. I thought you were referring to them in the first place. Those bosses probably don't havr the slightest idea there's a Dragon type anyway.

dragoniteuser November 6th, 2010 6:12 AM

LOL
OK, maybe I was a bit overdramatic there, but my point still stands. Even if Sugionri did make them Dragon types, he probably did that cause they're legendaries. If that's the case, then why not add Deoxys, Jirachi, Manaphy, and others in the Den. they're legendaries aswell, just that Gamefreak assigned them with other types.

tkallab November 6th, 2010 6:26 AM

Well, simply because they're not Dragon types. In my opinion, all Dragon-types Pokémon should be considered dragons until the opposite has been proven very thoroughly.

Amore November 6th, 2010 1:53 PM

Good point (Although I still think Altaria's a dragon, sorry. Although that's probably because it was my first ever dragon).

But draggy, if you're going to argue appearances and win....don't expect to be allowed to argue that your beloved Onokusu is a dragon, as that would be extremely hypocritical. Others could argue for it, but from the way you're stating your opinions, I would actually hate you for doing such a u-turn on dragons.

I guess I could expand on Tkallab's expression and say that it's a dragon unless it's been proven that it's very obviously something else - i.e. most people seemed to think Altaria was a bird (almost everyone except me), so it could go. Something where there's doubt, like the Sinnoh Trio, shouldn't be allowed to go.

Xilfer November 6th, 2010 2:36 PM

Hey guys sorry for inactivity, what are we talking about?

Tribal Ebony November 6th, 2010 2:54 PM

Well, when I saw Garchomp for the first time, I was looking at it's head. It's like a hammerhead sharks' head! As for Dialga and Palkia, I kinda knew they were dragons, coz the elderly of Celestic Town and The Pokedex told me so.

EDIT: Oh, Xilifer, we are talking about what makes Garchomp, Dialga and Palkia look like dragons.

tkallab November 6th, 2010 3:47 PM

Yeah, we're having yet another 'draggy and tkallab courtroom drama' situation as always.

And I'll always be in favor of Dragon-typed Pokémon being dragons until there's a very good reason for me not to. Dragon typing should always be the strongest argument in any of these discussions. It's the reason I think Tyranitar isn't a dragon but Ononokusu is.

By the way, I believe draggy said somewhere he thinks Tyranitar does belong in the Dragon's Den. I don't know his vote, of course, but if he voted Tyranitar in the Dragon's Den, he'd definitely have the right to be in favor of Ononokusu being allowed in.

Amore November 6th, 2010 3:58 PM

Yes, I know, it's just the principles he's using to argue Dialga and Palkia out could also be applied to Onokusu....I'm well aware that the reasoning for voting Tyranitar in applies as well....

tkallab November 6th, 2010 4:12 PM

Okay, so our strongest arguments are:

1. Palkia and Dialga are Dragon-typed;
2. They're based on the dragons from the Shinto legends.

Facts.

Whereas draggy's arguments are:

1. They don't look like dragons to me;
2. Their designers make the typings up as they go.

Opinions.

Amore November 6th, 2010 4:18 PM

Yeah......hopefully common sense prevails.........


But still, we have to remain respectful of all opinions......especially as Draggy owns about 3 different clubs (we're both in them all I think xD) and could boot us from them if we irritate him too much :P

tkallab November 6th, 2010 4:25 PM

I'm only in the Bug Fan Club, and I'm the General there, so I won't be getting kicked out anytime soon, haha! Anyway, we're still friends I hope.

But all we I have been doing is making assumptions about draggy, while he's offline. Instead of focusing on draggy's arguments and replying to them while he's not here, let's make a pile of our own!
...Well, not now, my parents are gonna kill me if I don't go to bed now.

Amore November 6th, 2010 5:21 PM

Lol, same. But idc :P

Some arguments to include Dialga and Palkia:


- Dragon-typed.
- Partially based on mythical dragons.
- Dragon-type signature moves.
- Referred to collectively with Giratina as "the dragon trio"
- Learn many dragon-type moves by level-up, tm and tutor, including Draco Meteor

I'll get more later...

Dragon's Roar November 6th, 2010 6:36 PM

Hey, May I join? I really love dragon types.

Tribal Ebony November 6th, 2010 6:41 PM

Hey Dragon's Roar! Welcome! I'm sure if Armore accepts you, (which he probably will), you'll be able to join. ( Im not Owner or Coowner).

Amore November 7th, 2010 1:48 AM

Of course you can join! I did put a link to here in your welcome thread, after all.
I'll put your page on my OP. :D

Will94 November 7th, 2010 2:28 AM

Wondering if I can join??
Favorite Dragons? Flygon, Red Gyarados and Charizard!
Should Garchomp and/or Salamence be Uber? Definately! They are so uber looking!
Lance or Clair? Hmm, Lance, but Clair if they changed her clothes around.
Which Dragon looks best Shiny? Gyarados defs.
Giratina: 'Origin' Form or 'Another' Form? Origin form! I just started watching the Sky Warrior movie and he looks awesome in that!
Whats your Dragon Team? At the moment I only use 1 dragon, my Flygon, but you can see in my sig all the other Pokemon I have!!
Should Tyranitar be a Dragon? Yes! Make him Ground/Dragon or Rock/Dragon. Not Ground/Rock, they are basically the same thing!
What is your favorite legendary Dragon? Oh tough one! Either Lugia, Giratina or Dialga. Although I prefer not to use legendarys, excluding Red Gyarados (if that is considered Legendary) because they are so powerful, and I like using Pokemon that are sort of rare, maybe uber, but not legendary!

Hope I can join!! And so does Flygon!!!

Amore November 7th, 2010 2:55 AM

No, the red Gyarados is not legendary, don't worry xD

But welcome! Wow, we're getting more members.....

please read the first two posts so you know what's going on with all this voting on what to include!

Will94 November 7th, 2010 3:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amore (Post 6274463)
No, the red Gyarados is not legendary, don't worry xD

But welcome! Wow, we're getting more members.....

please read the first two posts so you know what's going on with all this voting on what to include!

Thanks, and I will read them now!
*Looks at the first two posts*
Whatever happened to short and sweet?!?! XD

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 3:55 AM

Now, now, boys, you know we'll stay friends, no matter what. :D
But I wouldn't say that my only arguments were that "they don't look like dragons to me".
Also, since I LOVE dragons, and I know almost everything there is to know about them, I've check up on that Japanese mith. In that myth it says that the Islands, alon with the pillar was created by ONE god-like creature, that once it has finished it's work, banished from this world. Now, I couldn't find much on it, but one of the descriptions says "the diety would be transforming into two different shapes, wich both represent the biggest trust in world. Those two were a soldier and his trusty horse." Also it said that this creature gave it's life to create the Pillar.
This was from a book about ancient myths my sister has(she's studying mythology), so I'll just leave you guys to think about this a bit...

Oh, yeah...
Owned.

Xilfer November 7th, 2010 5:39 AM

oooooh, that makes more sense now, so dialga is the trusty horse and palkia is the soldier, i get it.
regardless, they don't seem like dragons i think, well they don't SEEM, but tkallab has a good point......they ARE dragons, i think i'll support tkallab on this one, because i remember one of us mentioning this, "we should never vote on pokemon that gamefreak has dubbed as dragon typed"
and even if that WASN'T said and i was just HALLUCINATING, it's true.

tkallab November 7th, 2010 6:19 AM

Thanks, Xilfer.
And draggy, in all versions of the myth I found, Izanagi and Izanami are a man and a woman. Izanagi even descended into hell to take back his wife after she died. Nothing is said about any horse and/or horseman.

Amore November 7th, 2010 7:06 AM

Different convolutions of myths methinks.

Therefore, as there are different versions of events, they might as well be dragons! Certainly, Palkia hardly looks like a soldier, and Dialga is immune to foot & mouth disease, and therefore can't be a horse, can it?

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 7:54 AM

Is that supposed to be a horse joke, Amore? :/
I haven't found that man and a Woman Myth, but i can't say for certain that it can't be interprented that way.
But still, a man, a women, soldier and his horse, not one of those are even remote to dragons!!! LOL

tkallab November 7th, 2010 8:02 AM

So your saying Game Freak can't add some creativity?
Anyway, you should look up Shinto Creation Myth.

Amore November 7th, 2010 8:04 AM

What if the "soldier" and "horse" are dragons in disguise for fear of being hunted by you draggy to extinction.

And yes, that is a genuine explanation by me.

Oh, and yeah, that was a hoarse joke xD

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 8:08 AM

@tkallab
You can be creative as much as you like, but you can't make a dragon out of humans and horses!
@Amore
Well it was Haloween recently, so... :D

tkallab November 7th, 2010 8:40 AM

Then what did they make of humans and horses?

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 9:17 AM

What? Sorry, I don't understand what you tried to say there...

Silhouette November 7th, 2010 10:18 AM

Hey, what's going on? I haven't been able to access internet in a few days (so busy D:), and I'm too lazy to look back a page or two.

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 10:36 AM

Well... we're having a knife fight, and I'm outnumbered several to 1

Amore November 7th, 2010 10:44 AM

Lol. No, Silhouette, I started off voting (check my OP on page 1). And now we're arguing about just what Dialga and Palkia are (because they're obviously not a dragon/steel and dragon/water deity, are they?) :P

And yes, Draggy is outnumbered.

Oh, we also had about 4 new members in the last two days.

tkallab November 7th, 2010 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoniteuser (Post 6274996)
You can be creative as much as you like, but you can't make a dragon out of humans and horses!

Then what can you make out of humans and horses?

dragoniteuser November 7th, 2010 11:31 AM

Kinda a dumb question, don't you think???
Sereously, I don't get your point here tkallab... :/

Amore November 7th, 2010 11:52 AM

Centaurs!!

I think what he's basically saying is it makes more sense to make them into dragons than into humans and horses (in this world full of magical creatures, people are going to be a bit miffed if the deities are an ordinary person and a shetland pony, no?)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.