Preview JN067: Suspect Pikachu!?

[Sobble Bubble-O-Seven]

Leaked photo of episode 67:

Spoiler: Hiding this inside a spoiler because of a swear word in the tweet.

So THAT'S why Pikachu got arrested.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

Leaked photo of episode 67:

Spoiler

 

[Lightning Flame Blast]

“Everything you say can and will be used against you on court.”

“Pika”

“Especially that”

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

I find it funny how this thread started with people already being annoyed by the episode before eventually transitioning into constant speculation and excitement as to how Pikachu will be arrested. I guess everyone just wants to see the poor mouse suffer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Unireon]

Since he's been so Ooc this season, yeah.
Let's see if this makes him rethink.

 

[swiftgallade46]

Since he's been so Ooc this season, yeah.
Let's see if this makes him rethink.

He hasn’t been “Ooc”. Whatever he does is quite literally always in-character because the show is what determines his character.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

He hasn’t been “Ooc”. Whatever he does is quite literally always in-character because the show is what determines his character.

That...that's not how characters work, though??? Pikachu's entire character has already been properly established. There's a HUGE difference between expanding on a character by giving them more depth and completely contradicting major aspects of their character before not ever addressing it again.

 

[swiftgallade46]

That...that's not how characters work, though??? Pikachu's entire character has already been properly established. There's a HUGE difference between expanding on a character by giving them more depth and completely contradicting major aspects of their character before not ever addressing it again.

It quite literally is how characters work. Characters can change, characters can show sides to themselves that they didn’t show before...etc. It’s totally fair to dislike the direction Pikachu’s character has been heading. (I really think it was mostly isolated to JN030, either way but...). However, everything Pikachu does in the show is in-character, whether it’s different to how it used to act or not. The show today is still what determines the canon of what can be considered in-character for Pikachu.

 

[Schemer99]

So Pikachu's not getting arrested for killing Trio? What a bummer lol (again, just kidding!)

Anyway I'm not sure whether this has happened before, but it sounds kinda weird for a Pokemon to be sentenced and sent to prison when they're, what, the real world's animal counterparts? For me it's like sending a bear to prison for attacking a camper.

Well, many/most Pokemon are basically just humans in animal form, so they can definitely be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

Characters can change, characters can show sides to themselves that they didn’t show before...etc.

Again. There is a difference between expanding on a character and contradicting other character traits without reason(and never actually addressing them). Quite frankly, thinking about it reasonably, without my bias, it's extremely hard for Pikachu to show off his character without his interactions with other pokemon...but I digress.

everything Pikachu does in the show is in-character,

I think I should've articulated it better, but characters CAN have OOC moments in actual canon. However, those moments generally only happen after a character's personality and traits have been established(so the audience knows what would and wouldn't be in character for them)and only happen for a specific reason that is actually addressed by the narrative and is within reason. So, I don't think saying that everything Pikachu does in the show can be considered in-character makes sense. By that logic, if Ash were to, say, adapt Paul's methods of training in the show, it's in-character because it's the show today that determines what is canon for Ash's character.

 

[swiftgallade46]

Again. There is a difference between expanding on a character and contradicting other character traits without reason(and never actually addressing them).

Contradictory or not, it’s still in-character. A character is defined by everything it does in the show. You could headcanon it away or say you dislike the way it has changed, but it’s still very much a part of its canonical character.

I think I should've articulated it better, but characters CAN have OOC moments in actual canon. However, those moments generally only happen after a character's personality and traits have been established(so the audience knows what would and wouldn't be in character for them)and only happen for a specific reason that is actually addressed by the narrative and is within reason. So, I don't think saying that everything Pikachu does in the show can be considered in-character makes sense. By that logic, if Ash were to, say, adapt Paul's methods of training in the show, it's in-character because it's the show today that determines what is canon for Ash's character.

Characters can act “unusual” in canon, and typically yes this is for plot-related reasons and it’s explicitly stated that there is a reason for this. In Pikachu’s case, it is not.

I’ll give you a perfect example: Team Rocket in BW. I hated their more serious demeanor, and it contradicted their characters up until that point completely. But, they weren’t acting OoC. The writers were (unfortunately lol) just establishing a new angle to them. And now we know that they are perfectly capable of being serious and boring even if it’s a side to them I don’t like.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

it contradicted their character up until that point completely

That is literally the exact definition of the term, "out of character", which is "not in keeping with someone's usual pattern of behavior and motives." Sure, you can say they were establishing a new angle with Team Rocket(even though they never actually addressed this new angle or actually explored said angle)but saying they weren't acting out of character is a stretch, because they were. A character acting out of character is when they deviate from what is expected of them, so yes, characters can act out of character. Just like people can, actually.

 

[swiftgallade46]

That is literally the exact definition of the term, "out of character", which is "not in keeping with someone's usual pattern of behavior and motives." Sure, you can say they were establishing a new angle with Team Rocket(even though they never actually addressed this new angle or actually explored said angle)but saying they weren't acting out of character is a stretch, because they were. A character acting out of character is when they deviate from what is expected of them, so yes, characters can act out of character. Just like people can, actually.

That’s not acting out of character that’s just acting atypical. Again, a character is defined by everything they do in the show. So to act out of character it would have to be non-canon and contradictory to the way the canon has characterized them. That, or they’d have to break the fourth wall or otherwise explicitly state that this is not a canonical moment.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

That’s not acting out of character that’s just acting atypical. Again, a character is defined by everything they do in the show

Even when everything that defines that character in the show is contradicted without reason? Also, I'll be more exact this time, but out of character, in accordance to the Merriam Webster dictionary, means, "not in accord with a person's usual qualities or traits(e.g. his rudeness was completely out of character). Atypical, on the other hand, is, as also defined by Merriam Webster, "not typical : IRREGULAR, UNUSUAL", which, considering the definition of typical, does not fit here(combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group), since you can hardly compare the two. If a character is defined by "everything they do in the show", then that would be considered a character trait(if done frequently enough and is shown to be what defines said character), so THAT would mean that if they did something that isn't in line with said trait or quality that they have clearly been shown to contain, then said character is acting out of character.

 

[swiftgallade46]

Even when everything that defines that character in the show is contradicted without reason? Also, I'll be more exact this time, but out of character, in accordance to the Merriam Webster dictionary, means, "not in accord with a person's usual qualities or traits(e.g. his rudeness was completely out of character). Atypical, on the other hand, is, as also defined by Merriam Webster, "not typical : IRREGULAR, UNUSUAL", which, considering the definition of typical, does not fit here(combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group), since you can hardly compare the two. If a character is defined by "everything they do in the show", then that would be considered a character trait(if done frequently enough and is shown to be what defines said character), so THAT would mean that if they did something that isn't in line with said trait or quality that they have clearly been shown to contain, then said character is acting out of character.

Well for one thing I would call it a stretch to say that Pikachu has “contradicted everything that defines it without reason”.

That definition is for how a real-live person would act “out of character”. Because our personalities are defined by ourselves. Pikachu’s personality, on the other hand, is defined by many different writers.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

Well for one thing I would call it a stretch to say the Pikachu has “contradicted everything that defines it without reason”.

Perhaps. I admitted to that in my earlier post.

Quite frankly, thinking about it reasonably, without my bias, it's extremely hard for Pikachu to show off his character without his interactions with other pokemon

Pikachu’s personality, on the other hand, is defined by many different writers.

I understand the point of different writers, but that's basically chalking up to saying that Pikachu-and basically every other character on this show-has no clear-cut personality. If Pikachu just one episode started hating Ash at every moment it would be a part of his personality? If Ash trained his pokemon harshly to the point where they collapse that's also a part of his personality? It would, right, because even if it's contradictory, it's a new perspective by a different writer-so it's completely in-character...even when said character has already been pre-established not to do this.

 

[swiftgallade46]

I understand the point of different writers, but that's basically chalking up to saying that Pikachu-and basically every other character on this show-has no clear-cut personality. If Pikachu just one episode started hating Ash at every moment it would be a part of his personality? If Ash trained his pokemon harshly to the point where they collapse that's also a part of his personality? It would, right, because even if it's contradictory, it's a new perspective by a different writer-so it's completely in-character...even when said character has already been pre-established not to do this.

It would still be part of their character, yes. And it would be quite noticeable and probably disliked by many. It doesn’t mean Pikachu doesn’t have a clear-cut personality, it just means that as a fictional character, its personality is unfortunately subject to change on a whim. There are certain changes that they likely won’t do (let’s hope lol), but IF they did decide for some ungodly reason to do that (see: TR), then we’d unfortunately have to accept the reality that that’s canonically part of the character now.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

it just means that as a fictional character, its personality is unfortunately subject to change on a whim

If the personality changes, especially "on a whim", then it is automatically considered out of character. Also, again, with this "if it happens in show it's canon" idea, that's pretty much saying there is no clear cut personality. And if there IS, then if the character does something that contradicts this, then it is out of character.

A character is a person in a novel, play, or movie, which can be defined as "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual", while a personality is "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Need I explain how the two go hand in hand? Even if it is fiction, something that is literally a given is to make your fictional characters feel like ACTUAL characters, as in, they HAVE character. If you're going to give them such, then make sure they stay in-character, unless they have a reason not to (they go through change, an event changes them, they are shown having internal or external conflic, etc).

Also, this debate is on what can be considered out of character, correct? And should we take this to another thread, because this is steadily gearing towards off-topic, lol.

 

[swiftgallade46]

If the personality changes, especially "on a whim", then it is automatically considered out of character. Also, again, with this "if it happens in show it's canon" idea, that's pretty much saying there is no clear cut personality. And if there IS, then if the character does something that contradicts this, then it is out of character.

A character is a person in a novel, play, or movie, which can be defined as "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual", while a personality is "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Need I explain how the two go hand in hand? Even if it is fiction, something that is literally a given is to make your fictional characters feel like ACTUAL characters, as in, they HAVE character. If you're going to give them such, then make sure they stay in-character, unless they have a reason not to (they go through change, an event changes them, they are shown having internal or external conflic, etc).

Also, this debate is on what can be considered out of character, correct? And should we take this to another thread, because this is steadily gearing towards off-topic, lol.

We were still talking about Pikachu so I thought it was ok for this thread, but we can move it over to the general discussion thread.

Anyways, I think the problem here is that you’re using a different definition of “character”. I’m going by the definition of it being a person (*animal?) in media, while you’re using the definition of a set of qualities. Pikachu has a clear-cut character, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for it to act differently. That’s just the nature of fiction. Anything can happen. That doesn’t mean that everything that happens would be entertaining. But no matter what a writer decides to do with Pikachu, it’s still the character: “Pikachu”. Nothing it does will change that.

 

[Jewel the Quaxly]

I'm thinking that the CotD here, Detective Decker, might be behind all these electricity theft incidents. Considering how the clip from the preview in the Project Mew trailer showed Pikachu directing a Thunderbolt to some ceiling-I think they might have been underground, and Pikachu was giving electricity to the places that were electricity-robbed. Don't know for sure, but I have to say, I'm kinda impressed at the vague summary they gave.