Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
When Naruto started.
Nope.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Or if you want to be picky and say Naruto wasn't meant to be a weapon, then Gaara.
Now you're getting warm.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
The term Jinchuriki was not introduced until the timeskip.
This is what I was getting at. 😄
However, I will grant you Gaara but not until it was revealed that he was the one-tails' host until he revealed it to Naruto and Shikamaru in Lee's hospital room. (I think...I could be wrong). But that chapter was released well after Bleach had started and the concept of zanpakuto's was introduced.
Granted, the concept, as I presented it:
"Additionally, when was the concept of a jinchuriki even introduced? (The subjugation of a "chakra beast" to be used in a ninja as a powerful weapon)"
Implies that it didn't happen to after the timeskip: well after Kubo introduced "spirit weapons".
I don't think pretending that there's a big difference actually makes it a big difference. "One is born without their spiritual weapon and the other is born with it." Is that really a huge deal to you?
Except a biju is not a weapon inherently. It is an independent creature who's power can be harnessed. A biju isn't 'wielded,' while a sword is. A biju's chakra may be used, but it's more a living being being used as a generator in that case than a blade.
It's like calling summons the same thing as zanpaku-to. Sure, Gamabunta comes for fights and in that sense is a 'weapon,' but in inherent form is quite different.
A biju is an independent creature who happens to be imprisoned and it's power tapped. A zanpaku-to is none of those.
Different origins, different forms, different rules of operation, wills and objectives totally unrelated (and often opposed from the start) to those of their hosts, and while one gains more power by becoming closer to one's zanpaku-to, the key to gaining more power from a biju is being able to seal oneself away from it better (baring the last step).
They may both be inside a person, but they really don't have much similarities beyond that.
It does, actually. You'd have to have an understanding of Japanese honorifics to understand that.
With Biju, it is important in the same way it is dealing with another person. It's very important, but mainly in the sense of how much respect you show.
With zanpaku-to, it actually grants you power. You can't hear it's name until you're strong enough. Knowing it's name gives you shikai. Calling it the wrong name means you can't access the full power of the shikai.
It's more than a gesture of respect with them, they work very differently.
DDM: Well, no. Zanpakuto was not explained in detail until Bleach was somewhere around 50 chapters into Bleach. Which was, if I'm remembering correctly, likely after the Chunin Exams. Only thing we really know about it early on was that it purified souls and reflected Shinigami power, something Bijuu do not do.
Jinchuriki have existed sense the start of the series. If you're going to complain that because hosts didn't have a proper title, that is rather petty.
Of course, sense they are very different, there really isn't much to say concerning the topic.
Originally posted by Q99
Except a biju is not a weapon inherently. It is an independent creature who's power can be harnessed.It's like calling summons the same thing as zanpaku-to. Sure, Gamabunta comes for fights and in that sense is a 'weapon,' but in inherent form is quite different.
A biju is an independent creature who happens to be imprisoned and it's power tapped. A zanpaku-to is none of those.
Different origins, different forms, different rules of operation, wills and objectives totally unrelated (and often opposed from the start) to those of their hosts, and while one gains more power by becoming closer to one's zanpaku-to, the key to gaining more power from a biju is being able to seal oneself away from it better (baring the last step).
They may both be inside a person, but they really don't have much similarities beyond that.
I find most of the things you typed out to be supporting of my position.
The only thing directly relevant: The "inherent form" is not different at all: just the labels you are choosing.
Here, lemme retype everything you just typed out to show you how ridiculous you're getting with your supposed differences:
"Except a zanpakuto is not a weapon inherently. It is an independent creature who's power can be harnessed.
It's like calling summons the same thing as zanpaku-to: Gamabunta is summoned to fights to be used as a ninja weapon: the inherent form is the same because both are used as weapons.
A zanpakuto is an independent creature who happens to be imprisoned in the shinigami's mind and who's power is tapped by the shinigami. A zanpakuto and biju are both of those.
They are similar in the follow ways: both used as weapons, both trapped in a "minds" world of their hosts, both come in different shapes, both are subjugated and/or controlled by their respective warriors, both are sapient spirit entities, both are much more powerful when used in sync with the human, both are much more powerful and useful when you build a close relationship with them, both have differing wills and objectives to those of their hosts (illustrating their independent sapience), and both become far more powerful the closer the relationship is between the two with the final getsuga tensho being very comparable to the relationship B (and almost Naruto, now) sharing with their Biju.
There may be some meaningless differences, but they really don't have much differences beyond that."
Originally posted by Q99
With Biju, it is important in the same way it is dealing with another person. It's very important, but mainly in the sense of how much respect you show.
Wow...it's like...you're trying to prove my point just like Aura.
Lemme show you:
"With Zanpakuto, it is important [to master] in the same way it is dealing with another person. It's very important mainly in the sense of how much respect you show. Once you both come to a mutual understanding, the zanpakuto will tell you it's name and lend you it's power...very similar to the relationship Naruto and B have with their biju (though I do not know if B knows the name of his beast, yet)."
Originally posted by Q99
With zanpaku-to, it actually grants you power. You can't hear it's name until you're strong enough. Knowing it's name gives you shikai. Calling it the wrong name means you can't access the full power of the shikai.
Wow. Here, lemme show you, again:
"With biju, they actually grant you power. You can't hear it's name until you're strong enough to force it out of them or friends enough for them to tell you. Knowing it's name gives you a friend and someone who is willing to give it's life for you (see B). Calling it the wrong name means you can't access the full power of the biju because it would consider that disrespectful...unless you force the beast to give you it's power like Naruto.
It's more than a gesture of respect for both, they work very similarly."
Do you see why it is a poor attempt to try and apologize for Kishimoto's borrowing?
Just fess up and admit that the concept is retardedly similar to Kubo's work with Zanpakutos. I will grant you that knowing the name of the Biju is more symbolic of the power of the relationship than it is in Bleach. However, pretending that they are not basically the same is pathetic. You know that. I know that.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
DDM: Well, no. Zanpakuto was not explained in detail until Bleach was somewhere around 50 chapters into Bleach. Which was, if I'm remembering correctly, likely after the Chunin Exams. Only thing we really know about it early on was that it purified souls and reflected Shinigami power, something Bijuu do not do.Jinchuriki have existed sense the start of the series. If you're going to complain that because hosts didn't have a proper title, that is rather petty.
Of course, sense they are very different, there really isn't much to say concerning the topic.
Uhhh...no.
You're off subject. That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about Naruto (the manga) fairly recently introducing us to the concept of Biju subjugation and using them as weapons.
We didn't find out about the "friendship" stuff until it was explained to us by B. That's the part I was talking about. The concept of Jinchurki was not fully fleshed out until after the timeskip. They were basically "mindless" weapons of destruction. Only the Kyuubi had a personality beyond that of a feral animal: but we were essentially told from the beginning that he Kyubi was different and more powerful than the other beasts. We had no reason to suspect that the tailed beasts were like Zanpakutos until B came along.
And we had no reason to suspect that they were very similar until this last chapter when Kishimoto introduced the "friends" concept via knowing your zanapakuto's....I mean biju's name.
Now we get to see Naruto enter his "innermind" where his zanpakuto...I mean where is biju is located. He will then converse and build a relationship of trust with Zangetsu....I mean with Kurama. Then Naruto will finally be able to release his bankai...I mean ultimate biju form after building the trust with his zanpakuto...I mean biju.
Damnit...so confusing. Now they are all mixed up.
Wow. Here, lemme show you, again:
"With biju, they actually grant you power. You can't hear it's name until you're strong enough to force it out of them or friends enough for them to tell you. Knowing it's name gives you a friend and someone who is willing to give it's life for you (see B). Calling it the wrong name means you can't access the full power of the biju because it would consider that disrespectful...unless you force the beast to give you it's power like Naruto.
It's more than a gesture of respect for both, they work very similarly."
Do you see why it is a poor attempt to try and apologize for Kishimoto's borrowing?
Except, no, that's not true at all.
The biju aren't the power you wield, just the chakra that leaks out of them. When you use the biju itself, it takes over and you stay in the back seat (zanpaku-to never take over).
You can hear it's name whenever it wants to tell you. Shukaku's name is known and Gaara wasn't strong enough to hear it, nor did he subjugate Shukaku.
Nor did anyone force a biju's name out of anyway. With Son, he just up and told Naruto because he was tired of people not using it, the first time they met. With Kurama, Naruto didn't even hear it from Kurama, he just heard it second-hand from a guy who happened to know it.
Knowing it's name doesn't give you a friend or someone willing to give it's life for you- Shukaku was trying to take over Gaara's mind even with his name being known.
Calling it the wrong name doesn't prevent you from using it's power either- Bee can call his Biju nicknames or Hachibi with no problem in their relationship.
No one has gained power from knowing their biju's name.
So yea, it's not a poor attempt at borrowing. When you flip it around... you find none of the conditions on Zanpaku-to names apply to Biju.
Not a single one.
There's a much closer link to, say, Biju and Inner Hollows (which biju came first). Inner Hollows run wild. When you draw upon their power, their influence increases. When you use their power, there's an externally obvious change. Etc..
Originally posted by dadudemon
By the way, I will no argue this point any further. It is far too obvious that I am right and it is not necessary to argue my point for me to be magically more correct than I already am. I knew someone like you (I suspected it would be Q99, first, though) would ignorantly argue against the Zanpakuto comparison which I why I chose my words like a mother ****in' lawyer [csm]313[/csm.
What happened to this I wonder? 🙄
For the record, Bijuu aren't weapons. Zanpakuto's are a take on the concept of weapon spirits. Famous weapons with a soul, or that have a name. That kind of thing. Bijuu aren't anything like that. They're huge ****ing spirit monsters a la Princess Mononoke.
Plus I don't think its been said that knowing a bijuus name grants you more power.
I'm not actually going to read the entire stupid ass argument that is going on, but the way I see it as is that knowing the name of the Biju "weapon" isn't enough: To make using their power stronger you have to not think of them as a weapon at all.
Like B and Hachibi, they're friends, B doesn't think of the Hachibi as a weapon.
Originally posted by Nephthys
What happened to this I wonder? 🙄
You should check out what that point it was about. 🙄 😬 😬 🙄 😬
Originally posted by Nephthys
For the record, Bijuu aren't weapons.
They are. 🙂
Originally posted by Nephthys
Zanpakuto's are a take on the concept of weapon spirits.
So are Biju: made completely of chakra, they are used by the ninja as a sort of "chakra weapon".
Originally posted by Nephthys
Famous weapons with a soul, or that have a name. That kind of thing.
You're talking about the biju, now, right?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Bijuu aren't anything like that.
Oh. Okay. You were still talking about Zanies. Well, that are just like that. Everything you said also describes a Biju. "Teh 9-tails is attacking teh village". that was the name and everyone knew it by that. Famous weapon with a name.
Originally posted by Nephthys
They're huge ****ing spirit monsters a la Princess Mononoke.
I agree.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Plus I don't think its been said that knowing a bijuus name grants you more power.
It doesn't: it is symbolic of respect and kindess. A mutual understanding between the two. This is very similar to what must happen to learn your zanpakuto's name. Sure, the zany name learning is a bit more direct with it's power, but both represent a symbolic relationship of trust and respect toward the other. This is how it is portrayed in Naruto and Bleach. This is what set me off on the "wtf...not another stolen concept."
Originally posted by Q99
Except, no, that's not true at all.The biju aren't the power you wield, just the chakra that leaks out of them. When you use the biju itself, it takes over and you stay in the back seat (zanpaku-to never take over).
You can hear it's name whenever it wants to tell you. Shukaku's name is known and Gaara wasn't strong enough to hear it, nor did he subjugate Shukaku.
Nor did anyone force a biju's name out of anyway. With Son, he just up and told Naruto because he was tired of people not using it, the first time they met. With Kurama, Naruto didn't even hear it from Kurama, he just heard it second-hand from a guy who happened to know it.
Knowing it's name doesn't give you a friend or someone willing to give it's life for you- Shukaku was trying to take over Gaara's mind even with his name being known.
Calling it the wrong name doesn't prevent you from using it's power either- Bee can call his Biju nicknames or Hachibi with no problem in their relationship.
No one has gained power from knowing their biju's name.
So yea, it's not a poor attempt at borrowing. When you flip it around... you find none of the conditions on Zanpaku-to names apply to Biju.
Not a single one.
There's a much closer link to, say, Biju and Inner Hollows (which biju came first). Inner Hollows run wild. When you draw upon their power, their influence increases. When you use their power, there's an externally obvious change. Etc..
It is: all of what I said was true. Stop denying it to save face.
But, I will rewrite all of your words to show you how silly and hard-headed you're being (again):
The zanpakuto souls aren't the power you wield, just the spiritual energy that leaks out of them. When you use the zanpakuto or biju, you both become one. The Hachibi and B are the perfect example of this unison and what Kishimoto is trying to convey to the reader with the whole respect and name thing.
You can hear a biju's name whenever it wants to tell you. Kenapachi's zanpakuto's name is unknown and Kenpachi wasn't strong enough to hear it, nor did he subjugate his sword.
Nor did anyone force a zanpakuto's name out of anyway. With Son, he just up and told Naruto because Naruto wasn't his host and it didn't matter at this point. With Engetsu , Ichigo didn't even hear it from Engetsu, he just heard it second-hand from a guy who happened to know it: his own father.
Knowing a zanpakuto's name doesn't give you a friend or someone willing to give it's life for you - the zanapakuto owner has to earn it through mediation, fighting, and a show of respect. For instance, you can know a zanpakuto's name but unless it is the name you earned from it, the name does nothing for you: just like Naruto learning Son Goku's name.
Calling your Zanpkauto the wrong name doesn't prevent you from using it's power either- Kenpachi used his sword quite easily with no actual relationship between the two. The same is true of Ichigo.
Naruto has gained power from knowing his biju's name. Because Q99 has missed the entire point dadudemon is making, she thinks that his point is about just knowing the name and getting power. Since dadudemon made the point multiple times, at this point, that the "knowing the name" thing has much more to do with mutual respect and honor than it does invoking a name for power, she will finally understand why making such points are futile to the discussion.
So yeah, it's not a poor attempt at borrowing. When you flip it around... you find that there are dozen's of reasons and parallels between the two stories.
In summary: Damnit, Kishimoto, did you HAVE to copy Bleach by pushing the point about knowing your inner spirit-beast's name? The next few chapters are very predictable. Naruto talks to Kurama and uses his name. Kurama is resitant and snarky at first. But he slowly warms up and wants to fight for Naruto in a more active manner. Naruto and Kurama start whoopin' ass. ZOMG! Knowing your inner spirit-beast's name makes you stronger! Hoooray! But let's apologize for the obvious parallel between Kubo and Kishimoto: it makes us feel better.
Originally posted by dadudemonYeah this is basically true.
In summary: Damnit, Kishimoto, did you HAVE to copy Bleach by pushing the point about knowing your inner spirit-beast's name? The next few chapters are very predictable. Naruto talks to Kurama and uses his name. Kurama is resitant and snarky at first. But he slowly warms up and wants to fight for Naruto in a more active manner. Naruto and Kurama start whoopin' ass. ZOMG! Knowing your inner spirit-beast's name makes you stronger! Hoooray! But let's apologize for the obvious parallel between Kubo and Kishimoto: it makes us feel better.
I'd agree with that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They are. 🙂
No, they aren't. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
So are Biju: made completely of chakra, they are used by the ninja as a sort of "chakra weapon".
Metaphorically they are used as 'weapons', but they aren't actually weapons at all. They're more like the Hulk being on the Avengers. He's used as a 'weapon' in that you just point him at the baddies and stand back, but he's not an actual weapon, hes a monster. Just because you use their power in a fight doesn't make them weapons.
But whatever. This is a stupid discussion. You made a dumb comment, it happens. Lets talk about something actually interesting.
Note: I knew that Q99 would have something to say about it because she cannot stand anyone criticizing obvious poor writing in Naruto. Anytime anyone says anything about PIS or a criticism of Naruto, she's there, guns blazing. I actually didn't want to make that comment because I knew how much of a pissing match this would turn out to be. However, I gave in and posted the obvious anyway.
Originally posted by Nephthys
No, they aren't. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
They are. 🙂
Originally posted by Nephthys
Metaphorically they are used as 'weapons', but they aren't actually weapons at all.
No, they are directly used as weapons of mass destruction. They are employed exactly like nukes: if each nation has one, it is a mutually assured destruction. They are used as pawns in a balance of power between the nations. There is no mincing words about it. You can pretend that are anything but that but you'd be wrong and directly contradicted by dozens of examples in the manga.
Originally posted by Nephthys
They're more like the Hulk being on the Avengers.
I would say that B and the Hachibi are like that, but not all of the others.
Originally posted by Nephthys
He's used as a 'weapon' in that you just point him at the baddies and stand back, but he's not an actual weapon, hes a monster. Just because you use their power in a fight doesn't make them weapons.
You can have your own fanfic of Naruto. I'll be over here sticking with the actual manga.
Weapon: "anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim"
Originally posted by Nephthys
But whatever. This is a stupid discussion. You made a dumb comment, it happens. Lets talk about something actually interesting.
A stupid discussion that everyone is getting their panties in a wad over, obviously. It was an intelligent and keen observation.
Let's talk about something else I am not right about. Preferably...something you guys notice about Naruto that either makes it silly or PIS.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Yeah this is basically true.I'd agree with that.
hug2
Originally posted by psycho gundam
Ash ketchum would have had him tamed years ago
Touché
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, they are directly used as weapons of mass destruction. They are employed exactly like nukes: if each nation has one, it is a mutually assured destruction. They are used as pawns in a balance of power between the nations.
Hence why I said 'metaphorically'.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is no mincing words about it. You can pretend that are anything but that but you'd be wrong and directly contradicted by dozens of examples in the manga.
Its always nice when someone says this. Highlights the pointlessness of even bothering with them.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Hence why I said 'metaphorically'.
Which you used incorrectly. That's not a metaphor if it is a direct use: not a symbol.
By the way, a comparison using the words "like" or "as" is not a metaphor: it's a simile.
"They are employed exactly like nukes..."
Is a simile.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Its always nice when someone says this. Highlights the pointlessness of even bothering with them.
You mean you like it when someone points out why your position is obviously wrong? I guess I can agree with your concession but it doesn't feel right.