|
|
Post by bi-han on Nov 21, 2014 2:34:15 GMT
I'm wondering about the Ultimate Marvel-verse and classic 616. To give an example, the Ultimate Silver Surfer is absolutely nothing like his 616 counterpart in terms of story and skills. The same extends to Galactus. But the FF are pretty similar. What to do there? For the most part, the 616 characters, and their Ultimate counter-parts actually have different powers. For a lot of them, they seem similar(if not identical) when being used, but they are essentially reaching the same general result, through different means. To use Reed Richards as an example, the difference between the powers of 616 Reed, and Ultimate Reed, is comparable to the difference between the powers of Superman and Superboy-Prime. |
|
|
|
Post by DSkillz on Nov 21, 2014 5:34:58 GMT
What about Spider-Man(Otto Octavius)? Would he be different enough to warrant a separate profile? Eh, I personally wouldn't say so. It's still 616 Otto even if his consciousness is in Spidey's mind. |
|
|
|
Post by tomnowinblue on Nov 21, 2014 5:57:49 GMT
I'm wondering about the Ultimate Marvel-verse and classic 616. To give an example, the Ultimate Silver Surfer is absolutely nothing like his 616 counterpart in terms of story and skills. The same extends to Galactus. But the FF are pretty similar. What to do there? Ultimates is an ongoing universe running parallel to 616 so I think an argument could be made for them having separate profiles. My general guideline I'm using is, if the characters have interacted or can logically interact (like, simply with dimension crossing shenanigans) then they count as two separate characters. Crossing your own timeline doesn't count (because I don't think the database can handle that many Booster Golds). When it comes to characters like Octavious Spider-man, Dick Grayson Batman, and other characters like that I don't think they need their own profile. But I don't think we should combine Octavious Spider-Man with the regular Spider-Man profile. I think that a Doctor Octopus or Otto Octavious profile is enough, and if we want to use Spider-Oc then we should use that one. |
|
|
|
Post by SSJRuss on Nov 21, 2014 6:05:26 GMT
You know that is something I haven't thought of before. Maybe we could just tack on a different version of a character like Octavius Spider-Man to the parent profile. So when you're looking for Batman it will just be Batman, but you can scroll down and see what other versions of Batman are under that same profile.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomnowinblue on Nov 21, 2014 6:51:12 GMT
You know that is something I haven't thought of before. Maybe we could just tack on a different version of a character like Octavius Spider-Man to the parent profile. So when you're looking for Batman it will just be Batman, but you can scroll down and see what other versions of Batman are under that same profile. I agree with the parent profile thing. But I think it should be done more like, "Dick Grayson" gets a profile and all of his aliases are listed there instead of "Batman"" having a profile and all the people who have wore the Bat-mantle be listed. I'm not set in stone on this thinking, but my thought on it is that Dick Grayson is the same person no matter what costume his wears, while "Bruce Wayne Batman" and "Dick Grayson Batman" are two different people - and could interact (as follows the guideline I suggested). |
|
|
|
Post by shockwave on Nov 26, 2014 1:18:26 GMT
So, I'm not sure if there's a decision on the religious characters, but is there any leeway? For example, Satan and Jesus from South Park while technically part of the Christian faith to a degree, are very much separate from the main religious text.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSkillz on Nov 26, 2014 19:20:00 GMT
So, I'm not sure if there's a decision on the religious characters, but is there any leeway? For example, Satan and Jesus from South Park while technically part of the Christian faith to a degree, are very much separate from the main religious text. This is exactly why this topic is up, my man.  We're discussing what should and should not be added. |
|
|
|
Post by SSJRuss on Nov 26, 2014 19:49:09 GMT
So, I'm not sure if there's a decision on the religious characters, but is there any leeway? For example, Satan and Jesus from South Park while technically part of the Christian faith to a degree, are very much separate from the main religious text. This is exactly why this topic is up, my man. We're discussing what should and should not be added. I think fictional interpretations of religious charaters should be allowed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 21:37:12 GMT
This is exactly why this topic is up, my man. We're discussing what should and should not be added. I think fictional interpretations of religious charaters should be allowed I agree with that. Obviously not EVERY fictionalised version of certain religious figures can be allowed because there would simply be too many to list, but outstanding ones should be added. I would add character profiles myself, but the process is extremely long and frustrating on a tablet. I think we could possibly consider expanding so that we could include characters from completely different media. I mean, the database has characters mostly from comics, tv, video games and movies, with some others, and that's understandable, but what about theatre, urban legends, poetry, etc? They get a little underrepresented. |
|
|
|
Post by leroypowell3 on Mar 11, 2015 1:37:05 GMT
I like the rules as they have always been. Some people may want to adjust it for wrestlers or something which I can accept but the point is fiction and good taste. The sick and twisted need to go somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScrewAttackFan25 on Jun 3, 2016 7:19:33 GMT
I'm surprised that the mention of wrestlers not being included with only the few exceptions hasn't been discussed even further. While I agree that putting certain real characters in here might be a bad idea, ala Nazis and Ted Bundy, but why wrestlers? It has been explained why specifically Hulk Hogan and Sgt. Slaughter, but why only them? If anything, other wrestlers deserve to be in here too. Sure they might not have as much merch or appearances as Hulk or Slaughter in other media like cartoons and movies, but they are still something to think about. Mick Foley for years had to go through so much hurt in his career as a wrestler what with barb wire and chair shots to the head, John Cena is known everywere to almost rival Hulk Hogans fame, Vince McMahon is a greedy buisnessman that doesn't take no for an answer and would gladly go in the ring if it ment for the guy to change his mind.
Sure there are wrestlers nobody gives a damn about like Sheamus, Bo Dallas and even the Bella Twins. But you cannot ignore most of the others that have made an impact in the media that even non-wrestleing fans know them.
Example: There have been some refferences to the Ultimate Muscle anime of Kevin Nash, Edge, Bubba Ray Dudley and the nWo. One Piece even had one of the characters have a mask similar to Mick Foleys character Mankind.
See what I mean? Wrestleing in it of itself is already a Pop Culture category that most of them belong in this place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 8:10:47 GMT
I agree with ScrewAttack on his points about pro wrestlers. Their on stage personas are of course completely different from their real life ones; they are all basically fictional characters even though they weren't thought of as such for a long time. The lack of pro wrestlers (except for Hogan, which is pretty ironic now) makes even less sense after they've appeared in cartoons, comics, video games and more.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSJRuss on Jun 3, 2016 11:46:18 GMT
I think adding wrestlers should be allowed. I mean, if someone's going to use them then why not? Just adds more match opportunities and participation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 18:37:31 GMT
After thinking about it some more, the idea that certain figures can and cannot be included in the database based on "pop cultural significance" has always been pretty vague. Does anyone really know where the boundaries are drawn?
|
|
|
|
Post by DSkillz on Jun 4, 2016 8:49:42 GMT
I'm surprised that the mention of wrestlers not being included with only the few exceptions hasn't been discussed even further. While I agree that putting certain real characters in here might be a bad idea, ala Nazis and Ted Bundy, but why wrestlers? It has been explained why specifically Hulk Hogan and Sgt. Slaughter, but why only them? If anything, other wrestlers deserve to be in here too. Sure they might not have as much merch or appearances as Hulk or Slaughter in other media like cartoons and movies, but they are still something to think about. Mick Foley for years had to go through so much hurt in his career as a wrestler what with barb wire and chair shots to the head, John Cena is known everywere to almost rival Hulk Hogans fame, Vince McMahon is a greedy buisnessman that doesn't take no for an answer and would gladly go in the ring if it ment for the guy to change his mind. Sure there are wrestlers nobody gives a damn about like Sheamus, Bo Dallas and even the Bella Twins. But you cannot ignore most of the others that have made an impact in the media that even non-wrestleing fans know them. Example: There have been some refferences to the Ultimate Muscle anime of Kevin Nash, Edge, Bubba Ray Dudley and the nWo. One Piece even had one of the characters have a mask similar to Mick Foleys character Mankind. I believe the criteria for adding real-life characters in CBUB was that they had to have been represented in various other forms of media (i.e. a cartoon version of Sgt. Slaughter was in G. I. Joe: A Real American Hero; Hulk Hogan has been in cartoons, movies, and comics; etc.). Still, I think Serge may have had a personal bias against pro wrestlers in general, since only Hogan and Slaughter were ever accepted in the CBUB. See what I mean? Wrestleing in it of itself is already a Pop Culture category that most of them belong in this place. For a while, we were actually talking about rearranging the categories to try to make it easier to identify which characters should go where. For example, many agreed that "Pop Culture" was too broad to define as a category in of itself. Not sure how everyone still feels about changing up the categories, though. |
|
