1,583
edits
Talk:AntiSora: Difference between revisions
→How?
No edit summary |
(→How?) |
||
| Line 365: | Line 365: | ||
:Finally, Xaldin was attempting to turn Beast into a Heartless, and his method of doing so was to cause Beast to succumb to anger and rage, just as Pete said Scar succumbed to. Most of the villains, having succumbed to darkness, could be said to be in the stages of becoming a Heartless, but we are not told that the transformation is definitely underway except in Scar's case. I suppose you could argue that Scar has not completed the process, and thus is not truly a Heartless, but we'd need Nomura or the Ultimania to confirm that.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | :Finally, Xaldin was attempting to turn Beast into a Heartless, and his method of doing so was to cause Beast to succumb to anger and rage, just as Pete said Scar succumbed to. Most of the villains, having succumbed to darkness, could be said to be in the stages of becoming a Heartless, but we are not told that the transformation is definitely underway except in Scar's case. I suppose you could argue that Scar has not completed the process, and thus is not truly a Heartless, but we'd need Nomura or the Ultimania to confirm that.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 05:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
:"but if its body never became a Nobody, then the heart is doomed to either fade away to darkness or be devoured by Purebloods, which is essentially the same thing.". No. The man from Traverse Town was shown to have been recompleted at the end of KH1 during the credits roll. Basically, while every Nobody has a corresponding Heartless, not every Heartless has a corresponding Nobody. As a side note, this is how Ienzo in KH3D knows so much about recompletion. [[User:Rex Ronald Rilander|Rex Ronald Rilander]] ([[User talk:Rex Ronald Rilander|talk]]) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC) | :"but if its body never became a Nobody, then the heart is doomed to either fade away to darkness or be devoured by Purebloods, which is essentially the same thing.". No. The man from Traverse Town was shown to have been recompleted at the end of KH1 during the credits roll. Basically, while every Nobody has a corresponding Heartless, not every Heartless has a corresponding Nobody. As a side note, this is how Ienzo in KH3D knows so much about recompletion. [[User:Rex Ronald Rilander|Rex Ronald Rilander]] ([[User talk:Rex Ronald Rilander|talk]]) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
::I'm pretty sure that that was just a re-use of character models. In Traverse Town after that man dies, we see a completely identical man again later and they even make a little joke about it. He mentions that we must be mistaken or something like that. It was just a re-use of character model and I'm assuming the after credits was as well. I always assumed that when you "die" (heart leaves the body), your body and soul fades while what's left of you turns into a Heartless. And if you had a strong enough heart, then your soul will continue living on in your body, making your body live on. And once both that body (your Nobody), and your Heartless get destroyed, then you become complete again. I'm pretty certain that you ''need'' both your Heartless and Nobody to be destroyed for you to return, and if you don't have a Nobody, like most people, then you're dead for good. If this wasn't true, then everyone in the KH universe would be completely eternal aside from dying of old age. So, I'm pretty sure it's false to say that someone without a Nobody can be completed if just their Heartless is destroyed. It wouldn't make sense scientifically either since in the KH universe, when your heart leaves your body, your body and soul fades away. If that man's body and soul faded away, then how would it be possible for him to return if only his Heartless was destroyed? I could be wrong though --[[User:Elfdemon|Elfdemon]] ([[User talk:Elfdemon|talk]]) 06:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::"though I guess you could argue that the man in Traverse Town appears to be running from something unseen.". I always thought that was kinda obvious considering that I got it right away when I first saw it. [[User:Rex Ronald Rilander|Rex Ronald Rilander]] ([[User talk:Rex Ronald Rilander|talk]]) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC) | ::"though I guess you could argue that the man in Traverse Town appears to be running from something unseen.". I always thought that was kinda obvious considering that I got it right away when I first saw it. [[User:Rex Ronald Rilander|Rex Ronald Rilander]] ([[User talk:Rex Ronald Rilander|talk]]) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
I guess I've just been searching for answers for the unexplained and fillings for plot holes, when there simply isn't any. At least not yet. --[[User:Elfdemon|Elfdemon]] ([[User talk:Elfdemon|talk]]) 06:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | I guess I've just been searching for answers for the unexplained and fillings for plot holes, when there simply isn't any. At least not yet. --[[User:Elfdemon|Elfdemon]] ([[User talk:Elfdemon|talk]]) 06:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
:No, the stuff you added was all very, very useful. We should add it to the article, we just want to make sure we check for when other parts of the canon contradict what was said.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 16:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | :No, the stuff you added was all very, very useful. We should add it to the article, we just want to make sure we check for when other parts of the canon contradict what was said.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 16:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | ||