Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#47 - amonamonamon (10/17/2013) [-]
I like how Sam Oak actually looks like he did in the Celebi film, back when he was a kid   
Not sure if it's canon. A lot of people seem to claim it is
I like how Sam Oak actually looks like he did in the Celebi film, back when he was a kid

Not sure if it's canon. A lot of people seem to claim it is
User avatar #67 to #47 - cormy (10/17/2013) [-]
... That's not Oak in the comic. It's Fir.
#80 to #67 - amonamonamon (10/17/2013) [-]
There isn't anybody in the Pokemon Universe called 'Fir'. That's probably just a nickname or something

And it is generally believed that Professor Oak had something to do with the invention of the modern Pokeball, given his close relationship with Kurt, and his Old Pokeball from the Celebi film (shown left)
User avatar #81 to #80 - cormy (10/17/2013) [-]
There also isn't any indication that Oak lived in medieval times nor that he was the first to discover pokemon as seems to be the case in this comic either.
User avatar #49 to #47 - mutzaki (10/17/2013) [-]
Well, it's canon for the tv show, but not for the games.
User avatar #52 to #49 - markertemp (10/17/2013) [-]
But there's nothing in the games that has contradicted the existence and look of the younger Sammy Oak.
User avatar #57 to #52 - mutzaki (10/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, since the games haven't portrayed what a younger Oak looked like, there's no point in assuming he looked like in the movie. I mean, he's not even the same person as in the anime, since they have different grandsons.
User avatar #58 to #57 - fizzor (10/17/2013) [-]
The games, the manga and the anime are all different canons. It doesn't really matter if a younger Sam Oak exists in the anime, it's not contradicting anything. A young Sam Oak could exist in the manga OR in the games as well and no one would bat an eye because it's generally accepted that they're all different canons.
User avatar #59 to #58 - mutzaki (10/17/2013) [-]
I'm not sure what you're saying. We're agreeing on that they're not related to each other, but what's your point?
User avatar #62 to #59 - markertemp (10/17/2013) [-]
To expand what fizzor said, and to confirm what you said, yes, the Oaks are technically different characters. The Manga, and Anime, and the Games technically have no correlation to one another, and any characters that share names/looks are considered counterparts to one another (Ash, game Red, Adventures manga Red, etc. are all counterparts, but not the same character).

My point and fizzor's point go hand in hand. Not only are the Game's Oak and Anime's Oak different characters, there has been nothing in one medium to make the other impossible.
User avatar #63 to #62 - mutzaki (10/17/2013) [-]
But my point still stands, since it's not canon until it's been touched on. That's like arguing against the claim that it's not canon for Pokémon that all the games are a dream sequence, since it hasn't been disproven. No, because as long as it's not been confirmed, it's not canon.
User avatar #64 to #63 - markertemp (10/17/2013) [-]
Technically, it is canon, but Anime canon. Game canon is also canon, but unrelated. As far as canonicity are concerned, it's equivalent to comparing two unrelated Manga by the same author.
#79 to #64 - mutzaki (10/17/2013) [-]
I'm not denying that it's cannon to the anime.
 Friends (0)