Talk:List of unused Pokémon and character designs: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I've always found those sketches rather dubious now that I think about it. Where did they originally come from? Is there any proof at all that they are original concept art? - [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | I've always found those sketches rather dubious now that I think about it. Where did they originally come from? Is there any proof at all that they are original concept art? - [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
: Excellent question. However, I do know I remember seeing them way back then on PokéFor (note the fine print on the images) around the release of G/S. - [[User:Zhen Lin|振霖]]<sub>[[User talk:Zhen Lin|T]]</sub> 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:19, 30 June 2006
This page needs to be renamed, to something like "Unused Artwork" or "Unused Concept Art", due to the fact that somethings are not Pokémon. Also, am I the only one who sees a massive relation between Raichu and Honouguma, Cyndaquil? Nah it looks to me to be more of a possible Raichu evolution. - Ferret 19:32, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
> Why would Raichu evolve into a Pokemon without "chu" in it's name, who according to it's own name is a Fire-type?
They were trying something different maybe? It just seems to bear an amazing resemblance. - Ferret
So, Bublapedia has an article about Unreleased Pokémon, huh? Now all we need is an article on Fake Pokémon. - Pokencyclopedia
The Unnamed mammal has been said to resemble Hitmontop or Meowth
- Really? I definately see some Wigglytuff in there! FabuVinny 17:20, 26 November 2005 (CST)
I've always found those sketches rather dubious now that I think about it. Where did they originally come from? Is there any proof at all that they are original concept art? - Ferret 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
