You dont understand what your calling "requirements", Blaxican expanded your viewpoint in his post. Your lack of clarity on the point of toonforce or illogical fallacies concerning it is probably why you think what I claim as illogical or toonforce all have the same requirements. You want to tie in everything under one label, but what toons like goofy do and what developed charactes like Kratos and MC can do are different things altogether.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I do understand, BT. I believe the problem is that you do not.Before I begin, someone please tell me we're not using his definition.
My current working definition of toonforce, and what will be used as the base if the ruling is in favor, is an event or feat that occurs with no reasonable explanation or precedent, does not occur again (occurring twice causes itself to be precedent), and was clearly used as a storytelling device for the purposes of entertainment.
Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.
Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)
So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs. 🙂
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelDUH DUH DA DAAAAAAAAAAAH /Zelda soudn
Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)
So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs. 🙂
THIS MANE, HE KWNBODS
I still have problems with the definition in use. I don't see why doing it once should have any bearing.
I suppose however that my problem is summed up as not wanting to exclude characters at all, which this rule does.
But say, for example, a game embraces this idea of cartoon characters having special powers. And it's not explained in the game, it's just known and left at that it is just something cartoon characters like those in the game can do. We essentially exclude all their abilities, right?
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Toon is an abbreviation for cartoon which is a humorous(or satirical, though I rather doubt that would apply here) drawing.Force is best defined here as power or abilities(or feats, but whatever)
So my own definition of "toonforce" is a humorous power, ability, or feat that is really not meant to be taken seriously and is just there for laughs. 🙂
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
I still have problems with the definition in use. I don't see why doing it once should have any bearing.I suppose however that my problem is summed up as not wanting to exclude characters at all, which this rule does.
But say, for example, a game embraces this idea of cartoon characters having special powers. And it's not explained in the game, it's just known and left at that it is just something cartoon characters like those in the game can do. We essentially exclude all their abilities, right?
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I am willing to leave it at entertainment, instead of just humorous situations. Think Scott Pilgrim, there are a ton of scenes and feats that are over-exaggerated just for the Rule of Cool.
Well, it's a bit more difficult to argue against coolforce in my opinion than toonforce. Let's take the Ed's, from Ed, Edd, n Eddy. The episode with those boots that were designed to make Eddy feel taller, the Ed's go so high they seem to be in space and then fall to the ground. This suggests durability beyond normal limits, and yet the Ed's can still be beating and pummeled by kids. It's not meant to be thought about, it's just to make the viewer laugh.
Coolforce is a bit trickier, and right now I can't seem to think of a good example for it. Suggestions?
I can't think of one in games, but the closest I can come is Michael Jordan in Space Jam. He stretches his arm to win the final game.
Apparently, this would fit the rule due to it being for the sake of storyline. I have a problem with this, but what sucks most is this part I'll probably just have to bend over and take it. >_>
However, the same movie. If it were a game, we would essentially rob Bugs Bunny and Daffy of their special abilities, like pulling mallets out of their pockets.
This situation seems to me to even test the limits of this rule. It has no real explanation other than the fact that Bugs is a cartoon character.
So, if that were an acceptable explanation. In many cases we would find ourselves defining what is and what is not a "toon" character. Which brings up a different issue, allowing the argument, even with these rules, will open up spot after spot of places where more and more things will have to be defined more clearly.
But, if that were not an acceptable explanation then we're still taking away abilities. Which I do not like, and will likely continue to ***** about even after this ruling.
Well, it comes to toonforce just brings up more inconsistency. Spyro for example, features Moneybags, who consistently takes beating by characters. He gets shot with rockets, lasers, boulder crushing blows from a club, etc. And at the same time, he shows no ability for any special durability, making it seem weird that he can even survive these attacks, when minions are typically knocked out after one shot. It's not meant to be serious or cool, it's funny revenge for all the crap he puts you through.