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 eXemplary Logic 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)