Talk:Pokémon Trainer

I just call him Ash because i only see Ash when i look at the guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.247.30 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though he looks nothing like Ash, nor does Ash have Squirtle or Ivysaur. Do you call Ike Roy also?- Gargomon251 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard Ash does have a Squirtle. But, not with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by God180 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, his name is Red! Any Pokmon fan that is geeky enough to actually reserch the offical names of the RPG Charecters would know that! He is based on The Fire red/Leaf Green version Red. Also, Red IS NOT Ash and likwise with Blue and Gary.--User:Mudkipz 13:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't a pokemon fan at the time of Red or Blue so i just call him pokemon trainer. Unless i'm fighting him then i just refer to the pokemon he's using at the time. At one point Ash did have a squirtle and a charizard but he never had them at the same time and he never had an ivysaur. Speaking of which wonder why they picked those three pokemon. Carbonkirby 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why he has those 3 pokemon is because Squirtle is the 1st form(before evolution), Ivysaur is the 2nd form(after evolution), and Charizard is the 3rd form(after 1rst evolution).65.1.42.165 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question in any way. I'm asking out of all the hundreds of pokemon out of all the choices why they chose those 3 first generation pokemon only. Carbonkirby 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they're easily recognizable franchise classics? I dunno...They're all very different in play style while sharing a common theme... - Gargomon251 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Pokémon Trainer, canonically named Red, is the only character in the Super Smash Bros. series to date who appears as both a main protagonist and final boss in his own universe.

• This is not true When Mario first appeared in Donkey Kong he was the protagonist. But In DK jr he wasthe final boss.--Ouroborosi 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something about the pictures of May and Brendan. They have two colors, one for R/S and one for Emerald. The pictures in the article show a R/S version of them- should we incluse both? Raiespio (talk) 03:51, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Settlement

Hey! I recently started playing the very first pokemon game, pokemon red. You know how there's a lot of controversy about whether he's ash or not? Well here's the answer: He is. And he's also red. You see, like many RPGs at the time, in Pokemon Red, you can name your character any one of a group of given names. One of the names is Red, and another is Ash. Also, at the begining, you can choose your first pokemon from a group of three. Guess what they are: Squirtle, Bulbasaur, and Charamander. There. I hope I have settled the controversy around this guy. 98.117.158.220 01:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not good enough proof. As far as we know, the option "Ash" as a name could be a reference to Ash from the TV show (since we all know kids would go nuts to name their guy the same as the famous guy without having to know how to spell it). And just because PT fights with the Kanto starters doesn't mean one of them is his starter (although it's likely) - he could have traded for them, for example. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 01:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't understand what I was trying to say. Here's what I meant:

1. It's OK to call the PK trainer "Ash", as he is.
2. I also was simply explaining the reason why those three pokemon were chosen.

Is the Red in FireRed classified as Ash? That is the Red this Pokemon Trainer is based off of, my friend! By now, all who play Nintendo's games should know that the video games never connect with the Anime. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I have played the original Pokemon Red. One of the possible names is ash. Ash and this guy are the same person. Ash isn't "based off" Red, he is red. It's like saying whether the Mario in the TV shows is the same mario as the one in the games. 98.117.158.220 03:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

See here. According to Bulbapedia (and let's face it, they're the thing on this subject), Red and Ash are related but not identical. Like having two cars of the same make - they originally came fom the same place, but their seperate experiences differentiated them. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 03:51, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, Bulbapedia's information can't be used to clarify information here. Secondly, Ash being a possible name isn't enough proof, and Red just resembling Ash isn't either. To be frank, you'd need the exact quote from Pokemon's executives that "Ash is Red", heh heh heh. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

To 98.117.158.220. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:56, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Ash isn't Red, he's BASED OFF Red. And the name "Ash" ISN'T canonical to the games, as he was NEVER called that in them.

First of all sign your posts using ~~~~ Second, this discussion is months old. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 03:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Sakurai loves Generation 1, obviously, besides that, he wanted to see the actual idea of Pokemon Training make it into Smash. Now, we all know that Sakurai chooses his Pokemon characters based upon the Anime(he's stated this in an interview). Who's the most prominent Trainer? Ash. However, he always uses game designs. So he mixed features from both characters up, and threw them in as a generic Pokemon Trainer. Since Red from the games has no anime appearances, him choosing Red wouldn't make sense. As for the choices, Squirtle and Charizard were major members of Ash's team, which explains why he went with those two. Last was Ivysaur, and since there was no other potential character(and he didn't care about the Manga, meaning Clefairy wouldn't fit the bill, plus, she's not one of the basic starters from Gen I), he chose him as the final one. Kanto is heavily recognize, which Sakurai loves.

• This would be true if Red made it into Smash, but sadly, he didn't. Unfortunately, Sakurai didn't want anything beyond his design in, mostly because it's the most iconic design and nothing more. HyperFalcon (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Or, you know, Sakurai just decided to just go with Charizard because it's a favorite mon for a lot of people while the rest were chosen based on his own reasons rather than "Ash owned it, therefore in". We can't confirm he's Ash just because he has a Charizard and Squirtle. We're calling him Red because his design resembles Red, so we're going for it. We can't call the guy Ash at all because he doesn't resemble Ash and owning a Charizard, Squirtle, and Ivysaur doesn't make you Ash, especially since Charizard is super popular anyway and Ash never owned a Ivysaur. MegaTron1XD 03:33, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Sakurai looks at the Anime for characters. Squirtle and Charizard were huge in it(coincidentally belonging to Ash, Red's game counterpart). Ivysaur was just an afterthought. That, and we know he likes Generation 1 heavily. He does use a Generation III design for Pokemon Trainer, but that doesn't mean much since it's just the latest design.(this is basically obvious in every game where he always does so, Other M!Samus is taken, regardless of its popularity) As for calling him Red, that is blatantly false information. Which, you know, he is undeniable called Pokemon Trainer and referred to as such in all official Smash Bros. media. It's speculation he's Red, not a fact. Do not list blatantly false information for a nickname and obvious preferences. Also, I did not say he was Ash, we know he has some references to him at best. What they are are speculation too, so any Trivia on here actually needs to be removed since it's all pure speculation. As for "Why is Pokemon Trainer not referred to as Red in his trophy description", it's because he's not Red. That's all there is to it. I did make a mistake about the Ash information and I apologize(even if that's probably why he chose them). This is also proof of how they're selected. So to say it's just based upon the Games, that's kind of false. Also, since he really doesn't look at the games much at all, but the Anime, Red being in is pretty much completely unbelievable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HyperFalcon (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Dude, it's unbelievable except for the fact that Red is in the game. That argument holds no water. Just because he looks at the anime to see what Pokémon are popular doesn't mean he doesn't garner inspiration for the game. DoctorPain99 04:20, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

You're basing this off a "costume" and not any actual evidence. We already know he's not called Red in the games or official media. Treating him as such in the actual series doesn't work. At least as a fact. It's great people want to believe he is Red, but that doesn't actually make him Red. Until Sakurai actually states he's literally Red, and not a Pokemon Trainer(generic) as the game officially specifies, calling him Red on here is entirely speculation. Do you have any evidence by Sakurai or the game itself that refers to him as Red? If not, then it's nothing more than speculation.HyperFalcon (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

The costume and overall character design is actually actual evidence. I don't understand how you can possibly think otherwise. Compare the two. They're clearly the same thing. It's not speculation. He's called Pokémon Trainer because in the Pokémon games, you can name him, much like the Villager in Animal Crossing. The article's name isn't Red because he's not referred to that by the game, but for Trivia purposes, saying he's Red is not incorrect. If you want to make a case, actually give evidence to state he's not Red; don't just say "Sakurai didn't say he's Red, so he's not" when they're clearly identical. DoctorPain99 04:40, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Why can't people fucking look at this? Bulbapedia says it's Red. We should too. Scr7 04:46, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

(indent reset) I didn't link that, because I don't want him to start a shitstorm about this over there, too. DoctorPain99 04:48, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for not linking an unreliable source of information that never cited any of that. I checked there too. They speculated it basing it upon nothing but a costume design. Sakurai only takes from the latest games(sometimes) for costumes... because it's the most up to date design. Also, sorry, but him using Kanto Pokemon is the reason to design him like the Kanto Trainer. If it was a different set of Pokemon from a different region, it'd be of that version. All of that is useless speculation based upon "He looks like this, therefore, he must be this." That's speculation. Until actual evidence that he is legitimately Red(Bulbapedia is not evidence, nor is his physical design real evidence either, since his name and Trophy, which are more usable than that), we need to remove false information and keep it to actual official information. The official information says he is Pokemon Trainer. Sakurai only says he's not Ash. Sakurai does not once mention him being Red, nor does any other non-fan-created information do so as well.(Bulbapedia's article was completely fan-made)

They speculated it basing it upon nothing but a costume design.

The character is identical. There's no refuting that. You can't just say "it's only a costume". That fact, paired with the fact that the facial features and body structure is identical, is quite significant.

Sakurai only takes from the latest games(sometimes) for costumes... because it's the most up to date design.

Wrong? He takes pretty much everything from the latest games, including characters, items, stages, etc., but that's beside the point. You're forgetting that Diamond and Pearl existed long before Brawl came out, but Sakurai opted for Red's FireRed and LeafGreen design instead. This is beacuse he decided to put Red in the game. The only reason he's not called Red, is because his name is customizable, and most people in the world don't know him as Red. Stop being dumb.

Also, sorry, but him using Kanto Pokemon is the reason to design him like the Kanto Trainer.

And who is the kanto trainer? Red.

Until actual evidence that he is legitimately Red(Bulbapedia is not evidence, nor is his physical design real evidence either, since his name and Trophy, which are more usable than that), we need to remove false information and keep it to actual official information.

His trophy says he was in FireRed and LeafGreen, which Red was in, as they are the same. Again, give us evidence that he is legitimately not Red. DoctorPain99 05:04, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Did you read the Trophy? Because it nor the game calls him Red. Therefore, you can't just call him Red with coincidental evidence. He can have all the designs and similarities to Red all he wants. But no official media states he's Red, just speculated ones. That's already 100% proof right there. Find an official source of him being called Red. Till then, you're using anecdotal evidence, not assumptions using a costume.(and yes, it's just a design, no more, no less) You see, this could work if they didn't name him Link despite looking like it, but there's absolutely no similar instances of Pokemon Trainer in all of Smash. Every character has a specific name, but him, for understandable reasons. His costume does not matter. His actual name, Trophy Description, official Website, and official media does. Which nothing states him as Red. Only fan media states him as Red. Bulbapedia is completely fan-created and actually was wrong on the issue too(making assumptions based upon anecdotal evidence, not unrefutable proof he's Red, which you don't have). As nobody else does nor has shown. The only reliable sources would be an official website, Sakurai himself, Nintendo, or Gamefreak. None of them have stated this whatsoever.HyperFalcon (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for completely failing to respond to any of the points I have brought up. I will not be responding again until you actually address what I have argued. DoctorPain99 05:12, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

There wasn't anything that wasn't already refuted. It's because he chose the Kanto Pokemon due to him using the Anime(as he always does officially) that we got a Kanto Trainer, not because he chose Red so he could use Charizard, Squirtle, and Ivysaur. You keep talking about Red's customizable name, but that isn't a good point due to Link being the exact same situation. What is Link called in Smash? Yes. Link is proof he has never once does this. Same with Young and Toon Link. And Ness. And Lucas.(you name all of them yourself, and official media is the only thing that gives them that name, in Smash and original games)) He just wanted a generic Trainer in, and the Trophy outright says it's a generic Trainer. They're identical only in physical design, but in nothing else. Another thing that proves this wrong is that Link in the first game cannot use a Boomerang. He's Adult Link from OOT. Sakurai isn't exactly keen on putting in correct stuff either, but every time he puts something in, he is very specific to what it is. The trophy point isn't as notable when he's made some mistakes too. The changes in the US version quite often leave out information. Take the Cloaking Device in Melee. It has different origins in each version. Perfect Dark in the Japanese version and "Unknown" in the US version. However, the Pokemon Trainer trophy is too vague on the Red stuff to really tell if he is or not. As of now, there's no perfect evidence he is Red, but there are signs he may be at best. There is clear proof he is a generic Trainer. Anyway, I was only putting in verified information and removing speculation.(which, yes, Red being in there is not verified by any official source, and is speculated since it seems like he is him). But this conversation is over, since I respect that people don't wish to put the stated facts down instead of just some speculation.HyperFalcon (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Pokémon TV

There is an app for iOS Devices called Pokémon TV. Pokemon: Origins is currently in circulation on this app, and Red is featured in these episodes. This would mean that Pokémon TV is his most recent appearance. ChuckNorris 18:59, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

"Most recent appearance" refers to a character's most recent appearance in a video game, not media in general. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

And in general, there are tons of characters based on Red across various media. (1 2 3 4 5 6?) Red's incarnation in Origins is no more relevant to the game version than any of these. Miles (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

Disconfirmation

So on the "characters" page should we remove the indeterminate icon for Pokemon Trainer and he is officially disconfirmed for Smash 4? ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 23:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

It's not official, since he could be back in some unknown form, but the evidence is currently formidible enough to note it on the page. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 23:09, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

I mean as a playable character. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 23:11, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

Unless an official source outright says PT is deconfirmed, he is still a viable character. He could come in without Charizard in some way. --HavocReaper48 23:13, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

He could feasibly come back in a version where he fights himself, or uses a single pokemon, so the intermediate symbol on the character list is still more appropriate even if he's not coming back in his Brawl form. Omega Tyrant 23:19, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

The two reverts

Firstly, why should Poke Ball Pokemon articles should still be categorized in "Pokemon universe" and have a said template to represent it in a list for all things Pokemon even though it already has a template which shows which Pokemon can pop out of a Poke Ball. Secondly, why isn't Pokemon Origins counts as a appearance but Pokemon TV does?

I had two edits undid even though I though it would of been right so I was wondering why it wasn't. Dots (talk) The 80's 12:05, 12 June 2014 (EDT)