If you don't think GF does enough research to know about some of the slightly lesser-known aspects of a design they're working on, then you're just insulting them. Just because you didn't know, doesn't mean they weren't capable of basic research.
I am not saying they can't or didn't research. All I am saying is that going through thousands of plays to get contradicted stories countless isn't very productive for a company that has to release material timely.
Superheros are popular. Right. So why base a Pokemon on an archer, rather than something that is explicitly a superhero. No superhero fan is going to get into Pokemon just because there is a Pokemon that looks vaguely like Green Arrow, who isn't even in the spotlight compared to most other superheros, considering he has a lesser-known TV show, compared to several blockbuster movies about multiple other more recognisable superheroes. Also, Greninja was definitely not created because Naruto was big. Firstly, Naruto had been big for years, so why make it when it was ending? Also, preeetty sure the concept of ninjas is more of a recognisable thing than specifically Naruto, and in a region based on France (which is famous for frogs legs) they had the perfect opportunity to combine the two things. Yeah nobody talks about eating Froakie legs, but they did use the French word for frog to make Greninja's name, so....
Please don't base Pokemon origins on english names. They can name it whatever they want. If you want to dig into origins look into Japanese names. Also Anime is a good source. There were a lot of similarities between Ash's Froakie and Naruto, I mean a lot. Besides they named Goukazaru Infernape in the english translation. Can you still trust those guys? Apes don't even have tail according to general classification.
Also basing a Green Archer on GA is profitable if they are really going for the Hero-Villain-Heroine theme for the starters.
Also, Nintendo has been getting reeaally litigious lately themselves, so I can only imagine they try to avoid being hypocritical in that regard.
I don't think they care that much else Lucario, who is mostly based on Luke Skywalker of Star Wars franchise wouldn't have got a Mega.
Everything else I was going to say was said much better in the comment below.
WHAT. Okay. Conversation over. You're clearly the one not capable of reasonable argument. I don't know what your bias towards GA is, but holy hell. And hood vs. hat??? His name is Robin HOOD. The hat is a modern thing
I might be wrong at the hood part. I thought the hood part came from his location in the woods. There are so many stories, don't know which to trust unlike GA who always wears hood.
But yeah this conversation is over. I can see them taking inspiration from Robin Hood but you can't with GA. No point in debating this point.
I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree. This sounds SO stretched to me, but ultimately it doesn't matter what you think it's based on
It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Nothing about Dartrix screams to me that it's more GA then anything else, especially when taken with Rowlett and the supplied Owl3 evolution. Until we know more about the final stage, we can't really know for sure anyway.
I don't think that's stretched. It talks about Dartrix ability to detect opponent behind its back but doesn't mention it turning its neck. Did that came from Robin Hood too?
But I must admit I am sensing a fourth entity here. Owl, Robin Hood, GA and someone else. I suppose I gotta dig in further.
Spoken like someone who doesn't actually know the story of Robinhood very well. The disney version of robinhood, is not the actual story of robinhood. Robinhood wears a hood to hide his face from the law because his face is also well known because he was originally a wealthy member of the kings court.... details vary, but the original stories have him running the line between good and evil and he is not a 100% good person (in some he ends as a true villain in a tragic way), he is actually really messed up and trying to figure out what the difference between right and wrong are. Every time he thinks he is now the good guy, he later finds he was being the bad guy. It kicks off with him realising the wealthy are living as such at the expense of others and that he was, in fact, a snobbish unfit braggart who never properly earned his place and so are the people he associates with... this is a key character element and the entire reason he becomes robinhood in the first place.
So anyhow, you can believe whatever you want, but I thought you should know what the actual story of robinhood was. Also, I have not seen green arrow, so if any of that sounds like I got it from green arrow, I did not.
yup, though the fact that he has wealthy preppy emo hair suggests they were drawing a little from the story since in all of them, robinhood is upperclass before he becomes robinhood... and most archers don't actually have hoods.
Can someone really know about Robin Hood story with a certainty? With so many mythos and stuff, its really hard to look at him as a character with depth. In one story story he might be of the royal blood and be a hero and in another he is a commoner who doesn't know difference between good and evil. Which one to trust or should we take both with grain of salt?
Btw it doesn't sound anything like GA. His origin is much more similar to Batman than Robin Hood. People think just because he derives his design from Robin Hood he is like him. GA is a much more than an archer and his fighting prowess is matched by none other than Batman. He is a strategist, a biliionaire(used to be a brat and playboy) and at times a politician. I can go on but the post will reach its limit
Also I haven't seen the Disney version of Robin Hood. Is it animated?