Talk:Eternatus (Pokémon)

Eternamax in Eternabeam

The article mentions that Eternatus changes into its Eternamax form when it uses Eternabeam... is this merely an aesthetic/animation thing or is it a legitimate form change? --celadonk (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

From what I have seen it is just like the case with Solagleo's and Lunala's from-like transformation as both can only assume the forms during an attack or traveling. Also its like the Case with Black Kyurem and White Kyurem, both are official from and form-like transformations. While Eternatus is turning back into its original power-up form, its not an offiical form changes Game Freak have not give that option in game, unless we get an event in the future that allows access to this form. In short, it is just an attack animation and an official form in Pokédex. But that's my opinion on the subject.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok.... is anyone able to check inside the game or do some tests to find out what's happening? I think it would be useful to clarify once we know all the facts. --celadonk (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

All the footage I've seen so far suggests that its use of Eternamax form in the Eternabeam animation is purely aesthetic. While Eternamax is indeed an official form given that it has a Pokédex entry and different base stats, the BST combined with the circumstances in which it's encountered (a Max Raid Battle in all but name) make it clear that the form exists solely as a "boss" of sorts rather than something meant to be legitimately used by the player. --UB00 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Eternatus is a Legendary

Why is there any debate about it being a Legendary? Alolan Ninetales (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Because there is no "proof" at the moment per the stats quo from what I get, we need an official source form Game Freak or Pokémon website. A similar happened with the Tapu and Silvally before in the past. When Eternatus is obviously a Legendary, the change won't happen until official confirmed, hence why there's a current debate at the moment.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Since when does something with an effing BST of 1000+ need official confirmation that it's a Legendary?! Shiramu Kuromu (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should change it unless Nintendo/Game Freak confirms it's NOT a legendary. Alolan Ninetales (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We're not going to call it a legendary until the games explicitly calls it a legendary. Regardless of the fact that everything points to it being a legendary. Unless the games call it a legendary, we're not calling it a legendary. Just wait. It'll be called a legendary in games eventually and we'll call it a legendary at that point. Have patience.--ForceFire 05:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ----TotallyTob 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. How can the last Pokémon in the current National Dex not be a legendary? Name a single time that was the case. To say that it's not a legendary it's a far greater reach. Golden Trainer (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mew is a mythical. Just because we don't say that it's a legendary, doesn't mean we're implying that it's not a legendary. We can't say it's a legendary because the games hasn't called it a legendary yet. The game could easily call it a mythical.--ForceFire 15:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

So we're treating legendaries and mythicals as separate, and are waiting for confirmation on which one Eternatus is? Fair enough, but that still doesn't explain why we haven't put it in the Legendary Pokémon template[1] yet, as it covers both groups.

The reason I said that we're implying Eternatus is not a legendary is that the Legendary Pokémon article says the following: "In Generation VIII, two more Legendary Pokémon were introduced, the lowest amount since Generation VI." That outright says that Gen VIII has two legendaries, disqualifying Eternatus. Golden Trainer (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it's neither been confirmed to be a mythical either. The legendary page says two because only two (well, five now) have actually been called "legendary" either by the games or Nintendo Direct. Eternatus will be called something in the future, but for now, we don't know because the game hasn't said what it is. So it gets left as ambiguous.--ForceFire 16:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the template doesn't distinguish between legendaries and mythicals, it just lists both. It's also titled "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon". So shouldn't Eternatus be included already? It doesn't matter if it turns out to be legendary or mythical, either way it qualifies. Golden Trainer (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it's not confirmed to be either of those things. The games doesn't say what it is. If the games doesn't say what it is, then it's neither a legendary or mythical for the time being. The expansions may even confirm it for us, so have patience.--ForceFire 16:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing is it was specifically said in-game that the legend of the darkest day was caused by Eternatus/ Eternatus was the darkest day itself which in it self is a legend/myth... so basically Eternatus is a legendary pokemon. Also I don't think this must be said again but we have 2 online competition live again and the rules specifically said no legends allowed and Eternatus is ban for the competition hence them saying it is a legendary.Badwolf1234 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Eternatus Eternamax Form

Hey can add Eternatus Eternamax game picture from Pokédex to main Eternatus because from what i have seen from Pokédex guide book, there may not be an official artwork for that form. So makes sense to add them in, same thing fro forms like Alcremie and Cramorant for example. I eellike that will save time and unless it shows up in future, might as add to main page of Eternatus, like with Cosplay Pikachu for example.--Jacob Kogan (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Origin" section has tenuous claims

I understand that Eternatus is not 1:1 for any particular figure in Welsh or Anglo-Saxon mythology and is likely a mixture of several sources, but the Origin section here has taken that to an extreme by being far too broad and generous in its theories.

> Eternatus may be based on several accounts of antagonistic giants in mythology and literature, specially Ysbaddaden, the king of the giants that resides in a nigh unreachable castle.

This is a bizarre assertion, because Eternatus is a dragon, but the giants of Welsh and Anglo-Saxon myth are humanoid. The specific reference to Ysbaddaden only confuses things further, as Eternatus hardly "resides in a nigh unreachable castle", nor shares any other aspects of Ysbaddaden's depiction (who is so old and feeble he holds his eyelids open with a fork, and who gives Culhwch many impossible tasks to complete). As far as I can see, the only connection here is that both are physically large, and both are important (Ysabadden's title is "Chief of the Giants"), but that is hardly enough to make the prime inspiration.

> It may also be based on the monsters killed by the hero King Beowulf, in the epic poem Beowulf, consisting of two giants and a poisonous dragon.

This is a theory that only makes sense when presented in as vague terms as possible; it falls apart when considering Beowulf's actual foes beyond those descriptors. The giants mentioned are Grendel and his mother, who are generally depicted as beastly humanoids covered in thick hair/fur, and described as "a creature of darkness, exiled from happiness and accursed of God, the destroyer and devourer of our human kind". The dragon, meanwhile, does indeed have a poisonous bite… but it's much better known for being the first fire-breathing dragon in European myth. If anyone were to base a character off of Beowulf's dragon, it's the fire they would pick up on, not the totally-incidental poison. Again, these inspirations only make sense if you distill the creatures down to the vaguest and broadest terms and divorce them from their actual context, at which point a supposed origin becomes irrelevant.

I know these sections are speculative, but that doesn't mean that all speculation is equally valid and worth including. These supposed origins don't stand up to scrutiny and shouldn't be included. The Uther Pendragon one seems the most plausible to me, accounting for both its dragon design and extraterrestrial origin, and should be the lead sentence; the St George's Dragon also should not be discounted due to its explanation of the poison typing. But the rest? Maybe a line saying that Eternatus' sheer size was inspired by giants, but even that's pushing it. Charchetype (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also having a bit of trouble seeing the similarity between Eternamax Eternatus and the Naga King. I don't think just having a coiled body with some powerful and significant entity (the core) sitting on top is enough to make a connection to a giant snake-deity serving as a living sofa for Vishnu. If anything, Eternatus seems closer to a Lovecraftian style eldritch abomination. --Adelon (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Image Being Linked for Eternamax Eternatus

The image should be File:890EMS-dot-png. Dorkfishie (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it's the correct format. Just because the image hasn't been uploaded yet doesn't mean it's incorrect. The image will be uploaded once we get the artwork. And some red links are okay, especially for things that we'd actually want.--ForceFire 16:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)