Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread (New Poll)

[Fig]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Yes. That sums up my objection. It's a superficial similarity, but look even a few seconds at the most detailed description of the Yggdrasil creature, and

The fandom latched on the bird/deer/serpent similarity (nevermind that past legendary trios have not, as a general rule of thumb, been based on mythical creatures that were linked together - Kyogre and Groudon are the one possible exception).

Yamitora, there are no rules against using capital letters in your post for emphasis (there's rule against making an entire post in caps, but I didn't do that). I wrote most of those rules and had veto rights on the rest.

Second, just because it's your thread doesn't mean I'm on "your" case. If I'm replying specifically to you, I will name you, or quote you. If I'm making a general post without either of these things, it means I'm not adressing you specifically.

 

[Spikeheila]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

one day we might have a mole with a nose like an elephant.

Well, considering things like that already exist ..


But yeah, the trio could be anything, and all kinds of things. Either way I think they're, overall, pretty cool. Merging mythos is always fun,for a fantasy world,afterall, and it leads to tons of speculation, though plenty of bickering , at least until word of god solidifies a claim.

 

[Regiruler]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title

I don't really see it, I mean Yveltal is chaos for sure, but Zygarde is Order and Xerneas is life, so it doesn't make much sense.

Life ~=~ Light (being Fairy helps) Death ~=~ Darkness (again typing). The auras help with this image.

Zygarde however is somewhat odd with it's Dragon/Ground typing.

 

[Rithirh]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

While I hate the name "circle of life trio", it seems to be the most accurate. Xerneas = life, Yveltal = death, and Zygarde = the balance between the two. Maybe they should be called the ecology trio? Though that's not a terribly catchy name either.

 

[Fig]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Eco-Trio?

 

[Yamitora1]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Here's my problem with the whole "artistic license" thing, how much can you change before the original material starts to become irrelevant? Yveltal doesn't hold the secrets, doesn't directly associate with Zygarde at all (not even via a squirrel) like Nighoggr/the eagle and deals with destruction, which the eagle is not associated with. Zygarde acts nothing like Nidhoggr, it doesn't call for destruction (in fact that's Yveltal's area), it's not gnawing at any roots and its main role seems to be to maintain balance, the opposite of what Nighoggr is trying to do. Xerneas does have glowing horns, but that doesn't necessarily mean it drew from Norse mythology, particularly since glowing horns isn't an obscure concept in media (i.e. Shishigami). On top of that, there's no large tree or other connecting factor to them that relates them to Yggdrasil.

Really, the only connecting factors that they really have on the surface is that they're a large bird, a stag and a snake/dragon, after that they don't have much in common.

The Squrrel and tree and all that other filler isn't needed if they are indeed based off the Norse mythology stories mentioned. I never specifically stated that they are 100% based off the inhabitants of Yggdrasil. As long as you keep the fundamental basis, you can use all the Artistic License you need. What better way then to switch the roles of the eagle and the serpent. Also, when was the last time you heard of ANY serpent being good? Their Public Relations (PR) is a disaster, they have and likely always will be seen as low, vile creatures. Game Freak is really breaking the mold with this one.

Zygarde might have no basis in any mythology; it all depends on what GameFreak used or didn't use to develop these Pokemon.

Yes. That sums up my objection. It's a superficial similarity, but look even a few seconds at the most detailed description of the Yggdrasil creature, and

The fandom latched on the bird/deer/serpent similarity (nevermind that past legendary trios have not, as a general rule of thumb, been based on mythical creatures that were linked together - Kyogre and Groudon are the one possible exception).

Yamitora, there are no rules against using capital letters in your post for emphasis (there's rule against making an entire post in caps, but I didn't do that). I wrote most of those rules and had veto rights on the rest.

Second, just because it's your thread doesn't mean I'm on "your" case. If I'm replying specifically to you, I will name you, or quote you. If I'm making a general post without either of these things, it means I'm not adressing you specifically.

If you can't see how you're coming off in your posts, then I have nothing else to say to you. This isn't about empathizes; this is about a overall tone you've kept from the beginning, as well as your impatience to wait and let info be compiled.

It isn't like there is a deadline to naming these guys, we have all the time in the world, but you have to go and suck the fun out of it by being a hot head about celtic mythology.

Just because Celtic Mythology has stronger ties to France, or Norse Mythology to the Germanic and Icelandic regions doesn't mean one or both can't be represented at the same time or not at all. For all we know, these guys have origin in North American, Native American or Central-South American Native American Mythologies.

Unova is based off New York, but GF decided to give it a trio based off two mythologies from across the world. GF plays to their own drum, they don't just use one thing, but many things to make their Pokemon.

If you would have shown some patience, and taken the time to check the front page for updates, you would have seen I was gathering info on EVERY possible origin basis. Not just Norse, but Celtic as well and I was about to go into others. But after all the crap I got from you and other people accusing me of tampering with info and not representing celtic mythology, I am fed up with it and you all can do your own research and come up with your own theories and whatever else pleases you.

In the end, so what if you don't see a Norse connection, I never specifically said they were for certain based on it, and it was all up for open discussion. But at this point I don't care if you see or don't see it, I am not going continue arguing.

you and everyone else are now left to your own devices. I will play nice, but I will not be made a door mat for tunnel vision rants any longer.

one day we might have a mole with a nose like an elephant.

Well, considering things like that already exist ..

But yeah, the trio could be anything, and all kinds of things. Either way I think they're, overall, pretty cool. Merging mythos is always fun,for a fantasy world,afterall, and it leads to tons of speculation, though plenty of bickering , at least until word of god solidifies a claim.

There is also a mole with this weird prickly nose as well. I could easily see a Poison Elephant made by GameFreak. Mixing and matching is what Pokemon is about, like Bulbasaur being a Dinosaur with a flower bulb on its back, or Rotom being a enegy gremlin/poltergeist that possesses electrical appliances and make people jump out of their skin when they see a giant washing machine bouncing towards them lol.

While I hate the name "circle of life trio", it seems to be the most accurate. Xerneas = life, Yveltal = death, and Zygarde = the balance between the two. Maybe they should be called the ecology trio? Though that's not a terribly catchy name either.

Ecology sounds like something you get a degree for lol. Eco-Trio is on the list, although only Zygarde deals directly with the eco system. But Eco is a little easier on the tongue and don't bring images and thoughts relating to the lion king with it.

 

[RazorBayleef4]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title

Zygarde however is somewhat odd with it's Dragon/Ground typing.

I agree. Though its typing kind of makes sense physically, I was always intrigued by it, because Fairy (Xerneas's type) is immune to Dragon (half of Zygarde's typing); and Flying (half of Yveltal's typing) is immune to Ground (the other half of Zygarde's typing). Makes me eager to know the other details about this third legendary, but it will still be quite a wait.

 

[Zweilous]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

The Squrrel and tree and all that other filler isn't needed if they are indeed based off the Norse mythology stories mentioned. I never specifically stated that they are 100% based off the inhabitants of Yggdrasil. As long as you keep the fundamental basis, you can use all the Artistic License you need. What better way then to switch the roles of the eagle and the serpent. Also, when was the last time you heard of ANY serpent being good? Their Public Relations (PR) is a disaster, they have and likely always will be seen as low, vile creatures. Game Freak is really breaking the mold with this one.

Zygarde might have no basis in any mythology; it all depends on what GameFreak used or didn't use to develop these Pokemon.

And yet all that "filler" was important in the original mythology and the key tying elements between the three. So that's actually something notable to be missing from this group.

Also, there's the rub, what "fundamental basis" exists for that trio being related to Norse Mythology? They have literally nothing conceptual connecting them to any of the creatures in that mythology outside of "oh hey, a dragon, large bird and stag!" There's no Yggdrasil or any similar concepts with this trio, there's no life/death/balance theme in the original mythology, so tell me what makes Norse mythology so special if the trio doesn't even share the basic concepts with the original group?

And there are a good number of good serpents in media (i.e. Kaa in the original Jungle Book for one, Snivy and its line), it may not be a common concept, but it's not exactly unknown.

 

[Yamitora1]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Zygarde however is somewhat odd with it's Dragon/Ground typing.

I agree. Though its typing kind of makes sense physically, I was always intrigued by it, because Fairy (Xerneas's type) is immune to Dragon (half of Zygarde's typing); and Flying (half of Yveltal's typing) is immune to Ground (the other half of Zygarde's typing). Makes me eager to know the other details about this third legendary, but it will still be quite a wait.

Rayquaza (Dragon-Flying) was also at a type disadvantage to one of its' trio members, Groudon who was Ground. It was his ability that made him the master and as Ash has proven, type isn't everything. Plus this gives their trio even more balance, since Zygarde isn't some brute force that can totally annihilate the two. He has enough pull to get them back in line, but not totally wipe them out.

The Squrrel and tree and all that other filler isn't needed if they are indeed based off the Norse mythology stories mentioned. I never specifically stated that they are 100% based off the inhabitants of Yggdrasil. As long as you keep the fundamental basis, you can use all the Artistic License you need. What better way then to switch the roles of the eagle and the serpent. Also, when was the last time you heard of ANY serpent being good? Their Public Relations (PR) is a disaster, they have and likely always will be seen as low, vile creatures. Game Freak is really breaking the mold with this one.

Zygarde might have no basis in any mythology; it all depends on what GameFreak used or didn't use to develop these Pokemon.

And yet all that "filler" was important in the original mythology and the key tying elements between the three. So that's actually something notable to be missing from this group.

Also, there's the rub, what "fundamental basis" exists for that trio being related to Norse Mythology? They have literally nothing conceptual connecting them to any of the creatures in that mythology outside of "oh hey, a dragon, large bird and stag!" There's no Yggdrasil or any similar concepts with this trio, there's no life/death/balance theme in the original mythology, so tell me what makes Norse mythology so special if the trio doesn't even share the basic concepts with the original group?

And there are a good number of good serpents in media (i.e. Kaa in the original Jungle Book for one, Snivy and its line), it may not be a common concept, but it's not exactly unknown.

A bottle, oil lamp or even a boom box is one of the important fillers for tales of genies, but we still have the Kami/Forces of Nature trio one and the same without the props.

You have to remember what the Tree Yggdrasil and the Squirrel represents; I mean metaphorically represents. Look up the squirrel or the eagle/hawk and you'll see the tree and squirrel, along with almost all the other animals represents a cycle of destruction, regrowth and ever changing existence of life. The Trio themselves are the tree (well more Xerneas then anyone else i guess) and cycle.

And again, that is if they're based off Norse Mythology, or a mix and match or no mythology at all. Xerneas might just be some cheap Game Freak princess moninokee rip off, and yveltal just your standard vulture that turns into a cocoon after sucking the towns people dry of life like some weird alien.

What makes Norse Mythology so special? Who knows, what makes Celtic Mythology so special? For all we know they're based off native american folklore. I mean we have goo dragons in this generation, so anything is possible. You just have to go out there, do the research and make up your own mind about these things.

Who knows, maybe the "Mew" of this generation (if this one does have one) is based off a squirrel. I mean so far we only have one trio, which hasn't been done since gens I and II and certainly not a mascot trio. Time will tell what they're based off, we might have to wait for the anime to show us or a third version or sequel versions.

And going back to Artistic License, not sure if you watch ABC's (a Disney Corporation) Once Upon a Time, but that is full of Disney taking artistic license with many figures that they've had beloved movies based on, and even mixing matching stuff. Snow White is suppose to be a kind sweet and innocent woman, but that didn't stop Disney from letting her go dark, clothes line a guy off a horse and then use a dwarf's pick-axe to break the guy's knee like it was peanut brittle ala Steven King's Misery style. This season they have Peter Pan and he comes off as some stranger danger, has a van with dark tinted windows and hangs around children parks vibe to him. The point is, you can play around with stuff, and even if you make it one way, doesn't mean it isn't still based off the original. Look at any low box office franchise reboot/remake. Michael Bay is about to make a TMNT movie where they're aliens, not turtles from a sewer that got mutated as fresh hatchlings.

Just because the serpent in Norse Mythology is bad and brings destruction doesn't mean GF couldn't change up its role and give it a more nontraditional good guy role like the one you pointed out which I didn't know about. I mean snakes and serpents have a role, even if humans see them as bad. Without snakes, the world would be over run by rodents

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;IOwinLWrEIw]http://youtu.be/IOwinLWrEIw[/video]

Sure deer can pick up some of the slack, but they're suppose to be cute, vegetarians that don't eat meat; right? :naughty:

Spoiler

deer eats black bird - YouTube

Scottish Deer Are Culprits in Bird Killings

Appearances can be deceiving. Plus you have to remember what birds, deers and snakes eat....each other.

One of the things that makes Pokémon fun is discovering what they're based on.

Take this fakemon for example. Can you guess what THREE things it is based off of?

Spoiler

 

[Spikeheila]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

one day we might have a mole with a nose like an elephant.

Well, considering things like that already exist ..

But yeah, the trio could be anything, and all kinds of things. Either way I think they're, overall, pretty cool. Merging mythos is always fun,for a fantasy world,afterall, and it leads to tons of speculation, though plenty of bickering , at least until word of god solidifies a claim.

There is also a mole with this weird prickly nose as well. I could easily see a Poison Elephant made by GameFreak. Mixing and matching is what Pokemon is about, like Bulbasaur being a Dinosaur with a flower bulb on its back, or Rotom being a enegy gremlin/poltergeist that possesses electrical appliances and make people jump out of their skin when they see a giant washing machine bouncing towards them lol.

Bulbasaur is not a dinosaur. It has zero dinosaur traits, no theropod traits, no ornithischian traits, and definitely no sauropod traits, hell, it has zero archosaurian traits. -saur does not denote dinosaur, it means lizard, which Bulbasaur vaguely resembles, even then though it could be based on an 'amphibian' or an early synaspsid of some sort, like some kind of pelycosaur.

 

[Zweilous]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

A bottle, oil lamp or even a boom box is one of the important fillers for tales of genies, but we still have the Kami/Forces of Nature trio one and the same without the props.

Except they're based on Kamis, not Genies, so your point doesn't work.

You have to remember what the Tree Yggdrasil and the Squirrel represents; I mean metaphorically represents. Look up the squirrel or the eagle/hawk and you'll see the tree and squirrel, along with almost all the other animals represents a cycle of destruction, regrowth and ever changing existence of life. The Trio themselves are the tree (well more Xerneas then anyone else i guess) and cycle.

And again, that is if they're based off Norse Mythology, or a mix and match or no mythology at all. Xerneas might just be some cheap Game Freak princess moninokee rip off, and yveltal just your standard vulture that turns into a cocoon after sucking the towns people dry of life like some weird alien.

What makes Norse Mythology so special? Who knows, what makes Celtic Mythology so special? For all we know they're based off native american folklore. I mean we have goo dragons in this generation, so anything is possible. You just have to go out there, do the research and make up your own mind about these things.

Who knows, maybe the "Mew" of this generation (if this one does have one) is based off a squirrel. I mean so far we only have one trio, which hasn't been done since gens I and II and certainly not a mascot trio. Time will tell what they're based off, we might have to wait for the anime to show us or a third version or sequel versions.

And there's no metaphorical elements within the main trio that relates to the original mythology. The squirrel, or hell even just a messenger in general, does not exist within the context of the story and has nothing to do with life/balance/death. Yes we can get a squirrel later, but we don't have that element now so we can't work with it yet. The tree, or rather a central aspect tying the three together, also does not exist. Also, you're still missing a direct life and death figure in the Norse theory to go along with it. The nameless eagle doesn't represent life or death, nor does the stag really represent life or death either all that well. Nighoggr does play a role in Ragnarok, but again, it's not centrally related to death itself and Zygarde has nothing to do with any of those elements in the original character. Also, throwing that role doesn't necessarily make it much better either considering that large birds (especially carrion birds like vultures) are heavily associated with destruction and death already, so there's already a direct relation present in other mythologies/folklore that are not in the Norse Mythology.

And going back to Artistic License, not sure if you watch ABC's (a Disney Corporation) Once Upon a Time, but that is full of Disney taking artistic license with many figures that they've had beloved movies based on, and even mixing matching stuff. Snow White is suppose to be a kind sweet and innocent woman, but that didn't stop Disney from letting her go dark, clothes line a guy off a horse and then use a dwarf's pick-axe to break the guy's knee like it was peanut brittle ala Steven King's Misery style. This season they have Peter Pan and he comes off as some stranger danger, has a van with dark tinted windows and hangs around children parks vibe to him. The point is, you can play around with stuff, and even if you make it one way, doesn't mean it isn't still based off the original. Look at any low box office franchise reboot/remake. Michael Bay is about to make a TMNT movie where they're aliens, not turtles from a sewer that got mutated as fresh hatchlings.

Just because the serpent in Norse Mythology is bad and brings destruction doesn't mean GF couldn't change up its role and give it a more nontraditional good guy role like the one you pointed out which I didn't know about. I mean snakes and serpents have a role, even if humans see them as bad. Without snakes, the world would be over run by rodents

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;IOwinLWrEIw]http://youtu.be/IOwinLWrEIw[/video]

Sure deer can pick up some of the slack, but they're suppose to be cute, vegetarians that don't eat meat; right? :naughty:

Spoiler

deer eats black bird - YouTube

Scottish Deer Are Culprits in Bird Killings

Appearances can be deceiving. Plus you have to remember what birds, deers and snakes eat....each other.

One of the things that makes Pokémon fun is discovering what they're based on.

Take this fakemon for example. Can you guess what THREE things it is based off of?

Spoiler

And even then, they keep to the basic elements of the characters. Snow White is beset by a queen and saved by dwarves, Belle is imprisoned and falls in love with a "beast," so on and so forth. So even with those liberties, you can recognize the characters through their basic elements. My problem with the Norse theory is that not only does it lack those basic elements, and the elements that the trio does have does not fit with the original characters at all aside from the animals. You can argue all you like that they switched them around or otherwise, but they're still unrecognizable from the original characters and if you're trying to force a connection to exist by completely reworking the characters then why bother trying to fit them in at all?

Again, I'm basing this on the design concept, the story itself and their intention in the roles, which is much more then what is given in just that picture. We have more elements to these Pokemon and yet we still can't relate them to Norse Mythology outside of the animals and you can't rely on the animals to relate them when other stories/mythologies/folklore/etc. have also used snakes, large birds and stag/deer within them.

Also, Michael Bay's TMNT is not a positive example as the fans and critics alike have lambasted that for changing too much in the first place.

 

[RazorBayleef4]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Rayquaza (Dragon-Flying) was also at a type disadvantage to one of its' trio members, Groudon who was Ground. It was his ability that made him the master and as Ash has proven, type isn't everything. Plus this gives their trio even more balance, since Zygarde isn't some brute force that can totally annihilate the two. He has enough pull to get them back in line, but not totally wipe them out.

Excuse me, but can you enlighten me on this one? How is Dragon/Flying at a disadvantage to Ground? If my type match-up knowledge is still well, I'm sure Ground doesn't affect Flying, and even when certain moves/abilities render Ground attacks able to hit Flying types, they're of neutral effectiveness. Ground deals 1x damage against Dragon too. So unless my memory regarding type match-ups have been not so good, I'm gonna continue believing that Groudon and Kyogre were both at a disadvantage to Rayquaza type-wise, since Flying is immune to Ground, and Dragon resists Water.

 

[Yamitora1]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Except they're based on Kamis, not Genies, so your point doesn't work.

They're based off both, am I the only one who on this forum who gets the concept of mixing and matching?

also its clear you miss the basic principles of Artistic License and Pokemon in general. Today when I felt better I watched the new spin off of once upon a time, and they've once again taken artistic license and combined the knave of hearts with Will Scarlet. While there was another knave (different actor) who served the queen of hearts aka Cora, it is still interesting them mixing and matching things like Pokemon does. Granted there might be two knaves since in a illustration when the knave is on trial for a tart theft, the guy in the hot seat has club(or spade i forget) symbols on his clothing, and its believed he was an impostor knave or something to that nature, but still mixing and matching is what artistic license is. The Kami trio are genies and kamis combined.

I don't even know how I keep getting sucked into this endless debate on norse mythology despite me trying play devils advocate with the theory and repeatedly saying "Assuming they're based on" not 100% stating they are. Half of it I know was me trying set the record staight on how many stags there were, and a god part was me making it clear I wasn't focusing on eagles and gathering evidence for other mythos but still, how the heck do I keep getting caught up in this. So lets just drop this, I feel achey shivery and like my head has water in it at the top between my brain and skull.

With that said, what name do you think they should be called if any...and if you already said it in a past post, sorry I've forgotten it and don't have the energy to go back and look through.

Excuse me, but can you enlighten me on this one? How is Dragon/Flying at a disadvantage to Ground? If my type match-up knowledge is still well, I'm sure Ground doesn't affect Flying, and even when certain moves/abilities render Ground attacks able to hit Flying types, they're of neutral effectiveness. Ground deals 1x damage against Dragon too. So unless my memory regarding type match-ups have been not so good, I'm gonna continue believing that Groudon and Kyogre were both at a disadvantage to Rayquaza type-wise, since Flying is immune to Ground, and Dragon resists Water.

I got ground and rock mixed up for a minute, hard to concentrate when down with a bone aching cold and have to deal with people arguing with you all over the place. god what I wouldn't give for the cold virus to be a electric type move and me be a ground type.

Anyways, I'm going rest, and might not be on for a few.

 

[Zweilous]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

They're based off both, am I the only one who on this forum who gets the concept of mixing and matching?

Conceptually they draw completely from Shintoism and design-wise they have a lot more in common with the typical depictions of Fujin and Raijin then genies. There's not a good enough basis for genies to be a concept for them in either fashion over kamis nor is there a good reason to believe it shares that position when Shintoism covers all the bases for the trio.

They're based off both, am I the only one who on this forum who gets the concept of mixing and matching?

also its clear you miss the basic principles of Artistic License and Pokemon in general. Today when I felt better I watched the new spin off of once upon a time, and they've once again taken artistic license and combined the knave of hearts with Will Scarlet. While there was another knave (different actor) who served the queen of hearts aka Cora, it is still interesting them mixing and matching things like Pokemon does. Granted there might be two knaves since in a illustration when the knave is on trial for a tart theft, the guy in the hot seat has club(or spade i forget) symbols on his clothing, and its believed he was an impostor knave or something to that nature, but still mixing and matching is what artistic license is. The Kami trio are genies and kamis combined.

I don't even know how I keep getting sucked into this endless debate on norse mythology despite me trying play devils advocate with the theory and repeatedly saying "Assuming they're based on" not 100% stating they are. Half of it I know was me trying set the record staight on how many stags there were, and a god part was me making it clear I wasn't focusing on eagles and gathering evidence for other mythos but still, how the heck do I keep getting caught up in this. So lets just drop this, I feel achey shivery and like my head has water in it at the top between my brain and skull.

With that said, what name do you think they should be called if any...and if you already said it in a past post, sorry I've forgotten it and don't have the energy to go back and look through.

And I've said it before, even with Once Upon A Time playing loose, it still keeps the basic elements. What you're suggesting with Xerneas/Yveltal/Zygarde is that Norse Mythology is the concept for the characters when they don't even share the basic elements of the characters in the original mythology. That's goes even more over the boundaries that Once Upon a Time does as at the least the show keeps the defining elements of the characters that many recognize and thus will identify, for Norse Mythology to be the basis it has to sacrifice basically almost all of the defining elements it has for its characters to fit into the group to the point that it's unrecognizable.

Anyway, I agree that we should move on from this argument since it looks like neither side will give and we're getting away from the point of the thread.

 

[Yamitora1]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

And I've said it before, even with Once Upon A Time playing loose, it still keeps the basic elements. What you're suggesting with Xerneas/Yveltal/Zygarde is that Norse Mythology is the concept for the characters when they don't even share the basic elements of the characters in the original mythology. That's goes even more over the boundaries that Once Upon a Time does as at the least the show keeps the defining elements of the characters that many recognize and thus will identify, for Norse Mythology to be the basis it has to sacrifice basically almost all of the defining elements it has for its characters to fit into the group to the point that it's unrecognizable.

Anyway, I agree that we should move on from this argument since it looks like neither side will give and we're getting away from the point of the thread.

There is no side, I've never aligned myself with any supposed side.

Anyways before these pills put me down like a Raichu does an Indian elephant, I think at the moment circle of life trio is the best, most neutral albeit cliche name. It is my favorite despite what you may think lol. While most people want a short, one-two syllable and to the point name, that rule is slowly falling to the wayside. The Kami Trio is an example of this, they are known as the Kami trio, but also the Forces of Nature trio (which argumentatively should go to the Weather Trio who was here first but that's beside the point) So naming the trio this isn't too off basis anymore. Life cycle trio is also good (at least it doesn't immediately jar the mind to think of The Lion King)

Cartesian Trio is my second favorite, however I am a bit skeptical when it comes to believing in people's competence when it comes to understanding the reasoning and elegance for this name. That's one of the reasons Twilight Trio was taken off the list, the lack of cognitive function and ability to think less literally and more three-dimensional. People rather call the Trio Axis/Axis power Trio, XYZ Trio or Kalos trio ( I only put Kalos Trio on the list to calm my OCD when the list was uneven) because they're lazy, trollish (the ones in favor of the Axis Power name) and I am not sure how many can spell let alone pronounce Cartesian. Even Coordinate trio faces this problem, unfortunately.

Mortality Trio is good too; however, people tend to have black and white thinking on the word, not realizing it can mean both life and death. Again, I have serious doubt in the competence of people to understand this name either. Although I'm more in favor of calling Xerneas and Yveltal the Mortality Duo if anything.

Omegabet is just my clever play on words and the Alphabet. Again, my confidence in the average person to understand the meaning behind this word is very low. I'll likely take it off the list when I get around to it.

Euro Trio is ok I guess, but seems lazy like Kalos and XYZ trio.

Eco Trio has the flaw that only Zygarde really has a direct link to the Ecosystem. I mean it could be argued that Yveltal destroys it by sucking out life, but that is circumstantial at best.

Balance Trio is ok, but technically the Tao trio has that covered.

 

[Bulletproof Scales]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

(nevermind that past legendary trios have not, as a general rule of thumb, been based on mythical creatures that were linked together - Kyogre and Groudon are the one possible exception).

What a foolish suggestion that's only used to fit your narrative. A look at the MAIN trios conclude that for all we know the other 2 trios (4th and 5th gen) are SIMPLY NOT (NILCH/NADA) based on mythological creatures at all, and rather just concepts represented by dragons... The sole trio that was based on mythological creatures contradict what you're arguing.
But take a look at the most recent generation. It's located in America. The trios? Chinese, Japanese and French base. There's more than 3 significant Kami, but they made a trio out of them because they're cardboard enough as is, or most likely because they prefer trios. The musketeers and Kami legends sure are "linked together" you are aware.

Nevermind that there were four significant Yggdrasil creatures (squirrel), not three, so where is that squirrel legendary?

Refer to my point on the Kami in the section above. Plus the rat is as insignificant as Keldeo, released later or not I couldn't worry less.

Again, the viking theory amount to saying "It's a deer, a bird and a vaguely serpent-like thing! They're obviously the Yggdrasil creatures!"

Nevermind that there is absolutely no connection between...

...The Morrígan and the deity Cernunnos, not even vaguely related. Let alone puzzling any underground dragon serpent together with those two.

WE CANNOT SAY WHAT ROLE ZYGGARDE PLAYS IN THE SERIES

But can I ask IF THERE'S ANYTHING RESEMBLING IT WHATSOEVER IN CELTIC MYTHOLOGY? It's quite critical actually.

Nevermind that there is zero evidence whatsoever Yveltal is any sort of eagle to begin with (rather than any other type of bird).

Only quoting this because you must've completely ignored my last post to believe that this is even a point being argued.

 

[Fig]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

But take a look at the most recent generation. It's located in America. The trios? Chinese, Japanese and French base. There's more than 3 significant Kami, but they made a trio out of them because they're cardboard enough as is, or most likely because they prefer trios. The musketeers and Kami legends sure are "linked together" you are aware.

The Kami trio are not "creatures linked together", they're "one basic creature concept in three different versions" Like the birds, the beasts, the Golems and the lake spirits in the previous generations. Three birds, three beasts, three golems, three lake spirits, three Kami. They're visually recognizable as a trio. The Muskedeers fall into this same category as well.

The trios that matter are the "concept" trios: trios that aren't linked together because they're variation of the same creature, but because they represent related concept:

-The Land/Sea/Air trio of RSE
-The Space/Time/Oblivion trio of DPPt
-The Light/Dark/Emptiness trio of BW(2)
-The Life/Death/Natural Balance trio of XY

Two of these trios have no link to any specific mythology. They're just dragons embodying their respective concepts. (Space/Time and Light/Dark).

SOME fans have argued that the Land/Sea/Air trio take its inspiration from a specific mythology (Hebraic). However, if they are, the inspiration is NOT in term of what animal they look like: Leviathan is usually represented as a sea serpent, not a whale; Behemoth is usually represented as a sort of warthog/hippopotamus, not a dinosaur; the Ziz is a griffin, not a dragon. So as you can see, the mythological inspiration for these three is conceptual, not a matter of what animal they look like.

Here, instead, the argument is that Nintendo chose to represent the physical appearance of three linked creatures, while completely ignoring what those three creatures represent.

And that's perhaps the biggest point, here. The Muskedeers look nothing like any creature that appears in the Three Musketeers - but it's a well-known fact that they,re based on the Three Musketeers. We've been told so. The Hoenn trio look nothing like the Hebraic mythological creatures they supposedly relate to: the general agreement is that the concept of the land/sea/air beast come from this, not their actual shape. The Tao and Space/Time trio have no mythological inspiration that we know of, they're pure concepts. Ever since legendaries have started mattering in the plot of these games, we've had legendaries that were defined by their concept, not their appearance.

Why should we assume it's different now, and that being deer/bird/snake pokémon suddenly matters more than being life/death/balance pokémon in determining inspiration?

Mark my words. They started with the idea of a life/death/balance trio. Not with the idea of a deer/eagle (if that's even an eagle)/snake trio.

IMO, IF there was a Norse influence, which there might have been, it was probably limited to "We have a deer and a bird. We could make a snake the last trio member".

 

[Amoebo]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

But take a look at the most recent generation. It's located in America. The trios? Chinese, Japanese and French base. There's more than 3 significant Kami, but they made a trio out of them because they're cardboard enough as is, or most likely because they prefer trios. The musketeers and Kami legends sure are "linked together" you are aware.

The Kami trio are not "creatures linked together", they're "one basic creature concept in three different versions" Like the birds, the beasts, the Golems and the lake spirits in the previous generations. Three birds, three beasts, three golems, three lake spirits, three Kami. They're visually recognizable as a trio. The Muskedeers fall into this same category. None of them are "creatures linked together by the mythology".

The trios that matter are the "concept" trios: trios that aren't linked together because they're variation of the same creature, but because they represent related concept:

-The Land/Sea/Air trio of RSE
-The Space/Time/Oblivion trio of DPPt
-The Light/Dark/Emptiness trio of BW(2)
-The Life/Death/Natural Balance trio of XY

Two of these trios have no link to any specific mythology. They're just dragons embodying their respective concepts. (Space/Time and Light/Dark).

SOME fans have argued that the Land/Sea/Air trio take its inspiration from a specific mythology (Hebraic). However, if they are, the inspiration is NOT in term of what animal they look like: Leviathan is usually represented as a sea serpent, not a whale; Behemoth is usually represented as a sort of warthog/hippopotamus, not a dinosaur; the Ziz is a griffin, not a dragon. So as you can see, the mythological inspiration for these three is conceptual, not a matter of what animal they look like.

Here, instead, the argument is that Nintendo chose to represent the physical appearance of three linked creatures, while completely ignoring what those three creatures represent.

im going to introduce a theory here, thats so simple i feel stupid.

yveltal=death
xerneas=life
zygarde=gatekeeper

which would explain why zygardes typing, really cannot annihilate life/death, only prevent it from seizing power

 

[Yamitora1]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Happy Halloween Everyone!
It seems that names with 'Life' in them are very popular. As I mentioned on the front page, the Pokémon Wikia is calling them the Life Trio, but again its a wiki, and most of the info seems bias and written before the games release. They call Xerneas and Yveltal the Gene Duo despite it being 100% confirmed that X and Y has no dna basis but an axis basis. Plus Gene Duo makes no sense, since X and Y are not Genes (barring Marvel Comic's X Gene) but are instead Chromosomes.

 

[BigBadBatter]

Re: Kalos Legendary Trio Title Discussion Thread

Considering that trios often have multiple names, I reckon cartesian trio and circle of life trio are the best