• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

SPOILERS! Mysteries and Conspiracies of Pokemon

I think it depends. In the SM anime, Team Rocket's Mimikyu is very much like this, but Acerola's doesn't seem to have a grudge with Pikachu at all. I could have that wrong though, I haven't actually watched most of the SM anime (regrettably)

Acerola’s Mimikyu is still wearing a Pikachu costume though, which is the real point. We only know of one canonical reason why Mimikyu make Pikachu costumes for themselves — it’s a bid to make people admire it like they do Pikachu.

Thus, in lieu of any other suggested motive, we’re left to infer* that Acerola’s Mimikyu presumably made its costume for the same reason. And that reasoning would apply to any other Mimikyu as well, because the makeshift Pikachu costume itself is part of the characterization.

* If one actually thinks about it this deeply, which I don’t think we’re supposed to.
 
Personally I feel like Mimikyu is kind of the poster child for the “Pokémon as characters” phenomenon. Like, it’s kind of hard to believe that “Pikachu envy” specifically is a species-wide trait, and that all Mimikyu, either collectively or convergently, decided to fashion identical Pikachu costumes for themselves. It’s framed more as an individual story, where this one hideously eldritch Pokémon wanted to be loved and got jealous toward another Pokémon that had lots of adoration, and decided to imitate it.
Birds of the same species make the same nests, spiders of the same species make the same webs or keep the same lack of web, ants of the same species makes the same kind of nests, and Mimikyu makes the same kind of customes. Mimikyu is like a hermit crab. If you can believe that all Dwebble make the same kind of shells then why not Mimikyus making the same customes? I think it would be weirder if the costumes were not similar.
 
Birds of the same species make the same nests, spiders of the same species make the same webs or keep the same lack of web, ants of the same species makes the same kind of nests, and Mimikyu makes the same kind of customes. Mimikyu is like a hermit crab. If you can believe that all Dwebble make the same kind of shells then why not Mimikyus making the same customes? I think it would be weirder if the costumes were not similar.
Spiders don't base their webs on their personal traumas, though.
 
I mean, how personal is basing things off pikachu really? Pikachu branding is everywhere in-universe as well. If the gimmick is that they are seriously lacking in solid examples of what trainers like, having mimikyu-pikachu be the default by a wide margin makes sense. There'd presumably be some examples of Disguises based on other mons, but there's a lot of mons that have more variety lorewise than the art designers have time for.
 
I think Eiscue, in some ways the spiritual descendant of Mimikyu, is less debatable.

You mean to tell me this entire species is based on cartoon bags over head, and they all have a specific personality. Alright.
 
I think there's something to the idea that Pokemon visual designs are so aggressively standardized in the name of keeping a lid on the scope creep potential of minor design variants. I don't think it's remotely out of place to suggest that it is worthwhile to take liberties with just how strictly Pokemon are represented visually. The games have even somewhat expressed this desire to allow for deviations in design through the lowest possible effort means - whether that was Gen 4 Gender differences changing a scant few pixels at a time or Gen 8 adding visualizable size variations to all Pokemon that act as a scale multiplier on the model. Visual variations on exact proportions of specific body parts or the shapes of certain features that could in real life be taken to represent minor species differences like those that exist in real life.

There are cases where Pokemon struggles with differentiating between designing characters and species, but I think most of the time that involves cases like Cubone / Kangaskhan / Slowbro and Magneton that were conceived of before the series needed to be interesting in crossing the Ts and dotting the Is of the narrative cohesion relative to gameplay systems. (or just things to do with Legendary Pokemon in general)

Mimikyu really is a case uniquely ill suited to Pokémon's limitations. The idea of a creature that utilizes a disguise of a popular Pokemon to try and capture its popularity among others is strong for a character, but the applied to a species it becomes much more difficult to justify narratively. Even assuming that Pikachu is the runaway single most popular pokemon in the narrative of the games, to such an unavoidable extent that every poltergeist on a distant island nation cannot ignore its presence, the organic nature of disguises should be substantially different from interpretative telephone. (Honestly just writing that sentence has me realizing the extent to which Mimikyu is a self referencial jab at multimedia conglomerates... and all Mimikyu being carbon copies almost reinforces that interpretation. Hmm.)

Mimikyu is also one do the pokemon that most directly breaks the entire framework of Pokemon breeding and Egg laying / hatching. Folks have mentioned Cubone being born wearing the skull of a relative, but less often do I see folks mention how goofy it is that Mimikyu are born bearing a cloak in the form of another specific species in the guise of being given attention which they are personally and specifically jealous of? A personal grudge for? Pokedex exaggerations or outright lies aside, it's the sort of thing that feels like it's a great concept for an individual character but falls apart on the species level compared to something like Banette, a discarded doll with a much more generic shape. I understand the core conflict - it's no mistake that Mimikyu is a fan favorite while Banette is somewhat forgotten, the specificity of Mimikyu and heartstring tugging story behind it are core to its appeal as a monster that is a part of this specific world. The lack of ability to allow for minor variations in appearance and design does tend to mean the strengths of the most specific designs stand out more. (The whole coy Egg / "we don't know how Pokemon breed!" thing specifically does not at all help in this case.)
 
Birds of the same species make the same nests, spiders of the same species make the same webs or keep the same lack of web, ants of the same species makes the same kind of nests, and Mimikyu makes the same kind of customes. Mimikyu is like a hermit crab. If you can believe that all Dwebble make the same kind of shells then why not Mimikyus making the same customes? I think it would be weirder if the costumes were not similar.
I mean, how personal is basing things off pikachu really? Pikachu branding is everywhere in-universe as well. If the gimmick is that they are seriously lacking in solid examples of what trainers like, having mimikyu-pikachu be the default by a wide margin makes sense. There'd presumably be some examples of Disguises based on other mons, but there's a lot of mons that have more variety lorewise than the art designers have time for.

Yes, but in a broader sense the point isn’t really whether or not one can come up with some way to rationalize this (because of course one can). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for coming up with bullshit to rationalize bullshit; it’s a favorite pastime of mine.

The point is more looking at how Game Freak approach the characterization of certain Pokémon. The vast majority of Pokémon, I would say, are fairly generic and animalistic in their characterization. For example, Tatsugiri and Dondozo are a clever pipsqueak and a big, dumb brute who cooperate to catch prey. That gives them a degree of personality and a role in the fictional ecology, but it doesn’t give them interiority. But Mimikyu and Cubone have interiority, which is then used to justify part of their visual design. We are given an explicit insight into their emotional perspectives, and individualized stories that emerge from them.

It’s kind of like the Legendary Beasts in Johto. Sure, you can come up with any number of workaround explanations for how there can be multiple instances of them, but the way that they were initially written was with their genesis linked to a specific event — three unknown Pokémon died in a fire and were resurrected by Ho-Oh, with each one of the three embodying an aspect of the incident (the lightning, the fire, and the rain).

(Though in saying this, I’m realizing that I’ve sort of strayed from the initial premise, which was more about how a lot of modern Pokémon fit more into the mold of “anthropomorphic beast with a hobby” as opposed to “fantasy animal hybrid.”)
 
The Legendary Beasts myth was always a mess because Entei's Silver dex entry say that they are born when a new volcano emerges. This dex entry implies that there are more than one Entei and they needed a hypothesis for their origin.

Was it ever explained in Gold/ Silver why the trio are found dormant in the Burned Tower? When I played as kid, my interpretation was that they died in the fire, Ho-oh resurrected them but left the beasts there dormant to be found by the player much later, which led me to think that Ho-oh was a dick.
 
My take on the Burned Tower myth is that none of the Beasts are a singular species, just very rare as the Regis and Birds are depicted in the anime (and themselves if you think of things like the Zoroark movie where separate specimens exist for the Shiny trio).

Ho-oh didn't bring these three species into existence when it revived the victims of the fire, rather they were revived as new instances of the rare and three powerful species we know them as now that already existed. This would also keep consistent at present/hindsight with the imagined "Triple Beast" in the Scarlet Book (predating the Burned Tower incident by 50 years and in a completely different region of the World from Johto), being another Paradox based on existing mons but warped rather than a 100% fabricated idea.
 
The Legendary Beasts myth was always a mess because Entei's Silver dex entry say that they are born when a new volcano emerges. This dex entry implies that there are more than one Entei and they needed a hypothesis for their origin.

That’s one way of reading it, and probably the more straightforward way at that. But to illustrate an example, if you were to think of it from the perspective of people in-universe, even if there were definitively only one Entei in existence, it wouldn’t be telepathically AirDropping its lore to everyone nearby as it roamed around. Someone who isn’t aware of Ecruteak’s history could happen to see Entei in the wild and then go on to develop their own mythology around it, and that could be how you get the volcano association.

(Now that I think about it, I feel like that’s kind of an interesting untapped conceptual well — Legendary Pokémon from one region who have also developed a separate role and mythology in a different region. Like I guess you sort of get that with the Galarian Birds and Regis in the Crown Tundra, but they were all actually pretty irrelevant to Galarian mythology, all things considered. Especially with the Regis, where it seems to always be essentially the same thing, every time, no matter what region they appear in: “Mysterious titans that were sealed away in what are now old ruins.”)

Was it ever explained in Gold/ Silver why the trio are found dormant in the Burned Tower? When I played as kid, my interpretation was that they died in the fire, Ho-oh resurrected them but left the beasts there dormant to be found by the player much later, which led me to think that Ho-oh was a dick.

There’s an NPC who says this (in both the originals and the remakes):

“Ecruteak was also home to three Pokémon that raced around the town. They were said to have been born of water, lightning, and fire. But they could not contain their excessive power. So they say the three ran like the wind off into the grassland.”

HGSS add a little more detail from another NPC:

“When this tower burned in a fire, three nameless Pokémon perished in it. Then, a rainbow-hued Pokémon descended from the sky and somehow brought them back... The people were afraid of power such as the rainbow-hued Pokémon had shown. They tried to control it by force. The nameless Pokémon made no attempt to fight back. Instead, their great sorrow compelled them to leave.”

From that, I gather that they were perfectly able to roam around, but for some reason must have come back to the tower to rest roughly sometime around the Gen 2 protagonist’s journey.

(and themselves if you think of things like the Zoroark movie where separate specimens exist for the Shiny trio).

When you think about it it’s all kind of a moot point anyway since Pokémon takes place in a multiverse in which time travel and trans-universal travel are possible. But frankly even before Gen 6+ made that explicit, I tended to be of the opinion that the very existence of Shinies for Legendary and Mythical Pokémon indicated that none of them were truly unique specimens. But then you get into a sort of debate about where the line is between things that are just there for gameplay consistency versus things that are meant to be part of “the world.”

And naturally, each medium is going to have its own canon. Hypothetically, the anime could say there are multiple Legendary Beasts while the games could say there’s just the one set originating from the Burned Tower, or vice versa. (Not that the games ever actually did say that, but certainly a lot of people felt that it was implied. See also the Lugia/Legendary Birds connection that was explicit in the anime but has only ever been lightly gestured at in the games because of the anime.)

This would also keep consistent at present/hindsight with the imagined "Triple Beast" in the Scarlet Book (predating the Burned Tower incident by 50 years and in a completely different region of the World from Johto), being another Paradox based on existing mons but warped rather than a 100% fabricated idea.

Honestly this was never even really an issue given the time travel of it all. The time machine isn’t built until roughly the present day and is the whole reason why Wake, Fire, and Bolt are in Paldea, so there always had to be some sort of temporal weirdness behind Heath’s team being able to observe those creatures, and the DLC implies that it was Terapagos bridging the two eras like it does with the professor at the Crystal Pool. So even if someone were a staunch diehard about subscribing to the idea that Raikou, Entei, and Suicune didn’t exist at all until the Burned Tower incident, the apparitions of their Paradox counterparts in Area Zero still wouldn’t contradict anything. At worst it’s just a good old bootstrap paradox, which is a concept that Pokémon has dabbled in before.
 
Last edited:
Spiders don't base their webs on their personal traumas, though.
Mimikyu has personal traumas?

But Mimikyu and Cubone have interiority
Animal species which pretend they are something else aren't that strange. Some praying mantis species pretend they are leaves, even rocking back and forth to sell the ilusion. Some spiders pretend they are ants and visit ant colonies. Some ants pretend they are ants of a different colony, rubbing themselves against a dead ant from that colony to put on their disguise.

I think many Pokémon have this kind of supposed interiority. Meowth likes shiny things, Jynx likes to dance, Gengar likes to scare people, Hypno kidnaps children, Seviper and Zangoose hate each other, etc. But it's not interiority as much as it is just behaviours asociated with a species like we have in real life as well.

Though I do agree Cubone is weird. He wears his mother's skull because his mother got killed by Team Rocket. So why do all these wild Cubones also wear skulls? Did Team Rocket kill all their mothers? Where are their ghosts? Why do I never see Team Rocket killing Cubones and Marowaks in the Safari Zone?

Tatsugiri and Dondozo are a clever pipsqueak and a big, dumb brute who cooperate to catch prey. That gives them a degree of personality and a role in the fictional ecology,
That's not weird to have on a species basis, either. Species-wide symbiosis exists in nature, too. And every species has species-wide personality traits.

It’s kind of like the Legendary Beasts in Johto.
That's a real personal story because those are connected to a specific event. There's only one time Ho-Oh made those beasts so this cannot be species-wide if there are more than 3 Legendary Dogs. But their story being personal makes sense with these Pokémon because in-game you can only catch one of each. So as long as you don't connect to other systems their backstories remain sensical.

(Though in saying this, I’m realizing that I’ve sort of strayed from the initial premise, which was more about how a lot of modern Pokémon fit more into the mold of “anthropomorphic beast with a hobby” as opposed to “fantasy animal hybrid.”)
Yeah, they've been doing personal stories since Gen 1. Mewtwo is another example. There's only 1 Mewtwo because he got created in the Cinnabar Laboratory and destroyed it afterwards. When you fight Mewtwo you figth an individual whose birth place you might have visited and whose personal story you might have read about.
 
Gen 1 is weird. Mewtwo was designed fairly early on and was always going to have lore/story significance. IIRC the story changed a few times in development in major ways, there was one version where the Elite 4 was presented a lot more like the manga and Mewtwo was involved or something. Forgive me for not fact checking all of this.

The thing is, Mewtwo as a character is supposed to be part of the environmental message which is, I imagine, why the anime writers made the decision to make Mewtwo actively talk. A fetus representing the mother of all Pokemon was turned into an anthropomorphized being, humanoid, and for the anime they interpreted it further; it is, in a sense, supposed to be a lone wolf making its own choices on what worth there is to humanity.

Both human and animal.

I imagine the choice to make Mewtwo kinda just something you find in Cerulean Cave was probably meant to have deeper meaning, but I actually think the anime did a good job of depicting what they probably intended Mewtwo to be.

I wonder if, given enough time to iterate (not that 5+ years wasn't a long time lol esp. back then) they would've turned Mewtwo into a sort of N figure.

I think the fact that Mewtwo doesn't talk in the actual games though does push that Satoshi's original vision had Pokemon as less ambiguously things to collect rather than people. And now they are heading the opposite direction fairly quickly.

Btw none of this is trying to argue with anybody I am just yapping. I'm not even really talking about the character designs, but rather how they are presented in-game.
 
That’s one way of reading it, and probably the more straightforward way at that. But to illustrate an example, if you were to think of it from the perspective of people in-universe, even if there were definitively only one Entei in existence, it wouldn’t be telepathically AirDropping its lore to everyone nearby as it roamed around. Someone who isn’t aware of Ecruteak’s history could happen to see Entei in the wild and then go on to develop their own mythology around it, and that could be how you get the volcano association.

(Now that I think about it, I feel like that’s kind of an interesting untapped conceptual well — Legendary Pokémon from one region who have also developed a separate role and mythology in a different region. Like I guess you sort of get that with the Galarian Birds and Regis in the Crown Tundra, but they were all actually pretty irrelevant to Galarian mythology, all things considered. Especially with the Regis, where it seems to all be essentially the same thing every time no matter what region they appear in: “Mysterious titans that were sealed away in what are now old ruins.”)
Something interesting there is that the Galarian Birds feel like an opposite take on what is being suggested here, both of which I find interesting to play with.

As far as I can tell, the Galarian trio is presented as a separate species of Bird Pokemon that were named because they match how Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres are described, kind of a less "religious" framed version of how Palkia and Dialga were separately interpreted as "All Mighty Sinnoh" in place of the original Arceus. This can be interesting as a look at how mythologies change across cultural lines based on the image of a being rather than its objective existence being documented.

Likewise, I would be curious about how a single universally "witnessed" Legendary could be viewed differently in different regions. Like how the 9-10 different Gen locations would construct a Legend around seeing Darkrai or the Swords of Justice or Necrozma with no context of their history/story (i.e. no Cresselia, not seeing the fire incident the Swords rescued Pokemon from, not talking to the Ultra Recon Squad about how Necrozma's light was lost). It's an angle that is rarely delved into in fiction since there's often this idea that if the creature exists, there is a singular existence or explanation to its nature compared to legends being hypothetical in reality down to their basis, much less their established traits or stories.
 
Translation really is a fascinating thing, because sometimes a simple slight mistranslation can colour your whole interpretation of a character.

Case in point: Giovanni. When the player defeats him for the final time in the Gen I games, he has this to say:

"Having lost, I cannot face my underlings! Team Rocket is finished forever! I will dedicate my life to the study of Pokémon! Let us meet again some day/someday! Farewell!"

Which implies he truly has seen the error of his ways, and intends to retire from criminal activities to pursue a more altruistic goal: Pokemon research. Which is actually entirely in keeping with his characterisation in other canons: in the Adventures manga, Giovanni is a noted Ground-type expert and apparently the first person ever to discover that Rhydon could evolve.

So I'd always thought that his changed lines in FRLG (and that delightfully cold Fame Checker message) were due to the developers wanting to use the character again in a potential GS remake (which, of course, did eventually happen):

"Having lost in this fashion, I can't face my followers. I have betrayed their trust. As of today, Team Rocket is finished forever! As for myself, I shall dedicate my life to training again. Let us meet again someday! Farewell!"

"There is nothing I wish to say to you.
I will concentrate solely on bettering myself, and none other.
"

...but it wasn't until much later that I learned that the RBY version is apparently just a mistranslation of what was originally said. Part of me always found it slightly incongruous that HGSS has him hiding out in a cave yet intent to rejoin his followers, and not in a research lab somewhere. But apparently that was always the intention.
 
I was having shower thoughts and wondering if Gwynn's name is supposed to be a deliberate Dark Souls reference, at least in English. She shares her name with Gwyn, Lord of Cinder, a super important figure in Dark Souls lore and even the final boss of the first game. If you're going to reference Dark Souls in Pokémon it would make sense to do so via the name of an important Ghost-type trainer, especially one whose ace is a Ghost/Fire-type.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I know who either of them are
Marlon from Pokemon is the Water gym leader in Black 2 and White 2.

Marlon from real is best known (by me) as the male lead from A Streetcar Named Desire, as well as The Godfather from The Godfather and the big important guy from that one movie based on Heart Of Darkness. He was also a method actor and apparently a huge pain in the ass to work with because of it.
 
I thought Marlon (from pokemon) was a reference to marlin (from fish).
Yeah I don't get any real Brando vibes from Marlon


Gwynn I can see a situation where it probably wasn't an intentional reference as it was Gwynn Dark Souls might have (re)popularized the that specific spelling of the name, so it was closer to the forefront of the localizer's minds
 
1794512183734.png


Speaking of shower thoughts, I saw this "Who is the Piccolo of Pokemon?" thread on the official Pokemon Forums last night and dismissed the answers given, but didn't really have an answer for myself until just now because I hadn't ever thought about the question before.

1794513115162.png

Is Clefable the (closest comparison to) Piccolo of Pokemon?
  • named after a musical element
  • comes from space and is associated with mysterious stones
    • but is also actually a different type than what people thought it was originally
    • but also has ties to its original status again
    • something about the Gengar/Clefable theory
    • or whatever this is:
    • In a 2004 issue of the Pocket Monsters manga titled Clefairy Transforms, the vengeful Dr Takeda tricks Clefairy into a machine that separates him from his Dark Side, resulting in a battle between the two. This form never appeared in any other Pokemon media.
  • known for killing martial artists, dragons, and other evils
  • has pointed ears (green in the shiny)
  • known for bulk and regeneration, associated with similar species that are more bloblike healers
  • relevant since the originals and recently powered up
  • notably associated with potentially lethal finger-based move
  • sometimes wears a head accessory
Yung Dramps interested in your thoughts on the matter.
 
View attachment 875946

Speaking of shower thoughts, I saw this "Who is the Piccolo of Pokemon?" thread on the official Pokemon Forums last night and dismissed the answers given, but didn't really have an answer for myself until just now because I hadn't ever thought about the question before.

View attachment 875947
Is Clefable the (closest comparison to) Piccolo of Pokemon?
  • named after a musical element
  • comes from space and is associated with mysterious stones
    • but is also actually a different type than what people thought it was originally
    • but also has ties to its original status again
    • something about the Gengar/Clefable theory
    • or whatever this is:
    • View attachment 875950
  • known for killing martial artists, dragons, and other evils
  • has pointed ears (green in the shiny)
  • known for bulk and regeneration, associated with similar species that are more bloblike healers
  • relevant since the originals and recently powered up
  • notably associated with potentially lethal finger-based move
  • sometimes wears a head accessory
Yung Dramps interested in your thoughts on the matter.
Necrozma derailed the entire story of USUM to aura farm.
 
Obviously the real Piccolo of Pokemon would be Gladion.

Also, based on the OP, Clefable wouldn't fit that definition at all. The main point given was "who just aura farms unnecessarily." Clefable doesn't do that. Buzzwole if anything fits that definition more since it's always flexing and posing.
 
Back
Top