- 7,285
- 13,228
A CRT is necessary to apply it to the profiles.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Giving Toneri a Second Chance (Obito Style)
- Thread starter Arc7Kuroi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- naruto naruto the last toneri
- Status
- 11,522
- 18,004
I can understand the sentiment but suddenly trying to get rid of a number of votes on this thread is a pretty important matter that could decide how this thread goes
- 11,522
- 18,004
The question is not “is it applicable to profiles,” the question is “is this version of the calc actually valid”
- 29,892
- 25,063
Okay. I think we're on the same page.
I think the majority of CGM's being in favor of it shows that the calculation is valid. The next phase is for staff members to discuss whether it is appropriate to be on the verse page / profiles.
- 9,060
- 9,337
The problem is, when the thread devolves into that, the actual discussion goes out the window. I agree CGM votes on threads like this should count, but for the time being, let's focus on the actual arguments.
I haven't even be able to fully read all the counterarguments, so having to on top contend with this new discussion, you should see how everything starts to get muddled.
- 7,285
- 13,228
It is valid, but that calc shouldn't be applied to profiles.
I agree.
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #207
Considering this thread concerns inherently the validity of the calc, as if the calc assumptions aren’t valid neither is the calc (calcs can be mathematically fine but not valid), and the assumption is an issue of “large size portrayal” (very much in CGM territory), CGM input is highly valid.
In fact this thread has never truly been about adding it to profiles, as I explicitly mention in the OP that it’s useless in scaling atm. My motive making this was to get the calc re-accepted on the verse page.
If people still disagree with that, I guess let’s reach a conclusion on the arguments before resuming this discussion ay?
In fact this thread has never truly been about adding it to profiles, as I explicitly mention in the OP that it’s useless in scaling atm. My motive making this was to get the calc re-accepted on the verse page.
If people still disagree with that, I guess let’s reach a conclusion on the arguments before resuming this discussion ay?
- 7,285
- 13,228
I don't see why this would be the case. The argument for why it's still "valid" has nothing to do with calculation, it's attempting to resolve the inconsistency with in-verse events that happened off-screen. It's a perfectly fine calc, but the basis for whether or not we believe that the halves were 40 miles apart, and then Tenseigan was activated, and was then brought back together, has nothing to do with calculation, and if the "validity" of the calculation is based on accepting that these things happened in the movie but we just didn't see it, that should remain a CRT, not a CGT
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #209
- 7,285
- 13,228
I read it, yes.
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #211
Then stop derailing until we’ve finished the priority topics of the thread, other staff have asked of that, and so am I. Leave the discussion on “is CGM input important” for after we finish up the OP pertinent arguments.
Edit: anyway I still owe KT a response to his argument, which I’ll get to working on later this afternoon, and hopefully we will be right back on track.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,600
- 19,127
You're doing god's work, keeping me away from these wretched places. Much obliged.
- 30,087
- 31,393
This thread is for discussing the validity of a 5-C+ calculation, so I do think Calc Group member input should matter here. I will also acknowledge that KingTempest has listed some good points, but I am overall still in the neutral territory with a leaning towards a support. Both Clover and KLOL also tend to make very good points too.
- 21,143
- 30,099
Someone please quote KLOL and Clover’s points
If y’all managed to make KLOL agree to a HST thread then I gotta see this
If y’all managed to make KLOL agree to a HST thread then I gotta see this
- 2,888
- 1,788
- 21,143
- 30,099
Oh my God
That isn't the issue
Please read the OP instead of reading the comments
The issue is that it isn't a bad assumption that it can move the two separate halves. That is a perfectly fine assumption.
The issue is that you're making the imaginary issue where "the pieces moved" when nothing said the pieces moved and it could just be an art inconsistency.
Then you're saying "since Toneri can move the moon, he can move the pieces back together".
That isn't the issue
Please read the OP instead of reading the comments
The issue is that it isn't a bad assumption that it can move the two separate halves. That is a perfectly fine assumption.
The issue is that you're making the imaginary issue where "the pieces moved" when nothing said the pieces moved and it could just be an art inconsistency.
Then you're saying "since Toneri can move the moon, he can move the pieces back together".
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #217
- 21,143
- 30,099
Also I need to directly counter this point in the OP now
1) The moon not splitting genuinely doesn't matter in that scan, as that's literally the same exact scene seconds before the moon split.
This isn't manga where they work with scans, that's the event from the movie happening in sequential order in the same phase.
You're not scaling the crack to... the crack. You're scaling the crack to the moon. If you can see the moon from it then that's where the issues lie.
The Naruto moon being smaller than regular is not something of "this is a joke I'll ignore it", this is "I won't touch it with a 10 mile pole cause I don't wanna get tackled by saying their moon is smaller".
With this logic, when Toneri made the huge explosion with Naruto's chakra, and we saw the forest (that's not even that ******* big since we can see the trees comparable to Naruto) explode with a crater the same diameter from top to bottom, and we see these 2
Then we'll say "nah it's an inconsistency, animators ****** up, no way the moon's that small" or some shit like "maybe the attack spread out in diameter as it went down" even though we see it didn't.
When we see a hurricane barely a few dozen times the size of the cast look like it can be hundreds of kilometers wide cause of scaling to the moon
"Art inconsistency"
I'm honestly annoyed at this point. People aren't reading the main issue of it being an inconsistency. They're reading "why wouldn't he be able to move the pieces back".
Nobody gives a **** if he can do it or not. The point is if he did, and the proof, or the lack thereof.
That's like seeing a random character on screen die and assuming who did it and applying it to the profiles when it's not even hinted that they did it.
That's like seeing Orochimaru getting offscreened by somebody, and we don't know who, but we can "deduce" who killed him even though we have no evidence of who it was, and say "well, Itachi pressed him before, he probably killed him now".
2) The light doesn't mean shit since the length of the cut of the moon is relative to the beam we see, and we can see the amount of light there is. Unless you wanna now say that the beam was cutting a width dozens of thousands of times larger than it.
They tell from the cut pieces around it, and only the astronomer with the telescope could see it.
If we're using that as a counter, then that means Kurama must be ******* hundreds of kilometers tall since he was similar to the size of the Kanji they could "see" from earth.
Everybody here needs to go watch that damn movie again cause yall are liking wrong comments and agreeing with wrong points.
The first time it was "inconsistency, the scan where it takes place takes priority. The moon's not smaller and you should take the scan of where the moon's being split instead of the inconsistent small scans".
When it didn't work, now it's "he just moved the pieces back together, it's not inconsistent, you're being dishonest and the animators didn't make any mistake".
I'm sick of this shit.
This is an issue with consistency.
1) The moon not splitting genuinely doesn't matter in that scan, as that's literally the same exact scene seconds before the moon split.
This isn't manga where they work with scans, that's the event from the movie happening in sequential order in the same phase.
You're not scaling the crack to... the crack. You're scaling the crack to the moon. If you can see the moon from it then that's where the issues lie.
The Naruto moon being smaller than regular is not something of "this is a joke I'll ignore it", this is "I won't touch it with a 10 mile pole cause I don't wanna get tackled by saying their moon is smaller".
With this logic, when Toneri made the huge explosion with Naruto's chakra, and we saw the forest (that's not even that ******* big since we can see the trees comparable to Naruto) explode with a crater the same diameter from top to bottom, and we see these 2
Then we'll say "nah it's an inconsistency, animators ****** up, no way the moon's that small" or some shit like "maybe the attack spread out in diameter as it went down" even though we see it didn't.
When we see a hurricane barely a few dozen times the size of the cast look like it can be hundreds of kilometers wide cause of scaling to the moon
"Art inconsistency"
I'm honestly annoyed at this point. People aren't reading the main issue of it being an inconsistency. They're reading "why wouldn't he be able to move the pieces back".
Nobody gives a **** if he can do it or not. The point is if he did, and the proof, or the lack thereof.
That's like seeing a random character on screen die and assuming who did it and applying it to the profiles when it's not even hinted that they did it.
That's like seeing Orochimaru getting offscreened by somebody, and we don't know who, but we can "deduce" who killed him even though we have no evidence of who it was, and say "well, Itachi pressed him before, he probably killed him now".
2) The light doesn't mean shit since the length of the cut of the moon is relative to the beam we see, and we can see the amount of light there is. Unless you wanna now say that the beam was cutting a width dozens of thousands of times larger than it.
No, it can't, because we see the movie and nobody can even see the split from earth.
They tell from the cut pieces around it, and only the astronomer with the telescope could see it.
If we're using that as a counter, then that means Kurama must be ******* hundreds of kilometers tall since he was similar to the size of the Kanji they could "see" from earth.
Everybody here needs to go watch that damn movie again cause yall are liking wrong comments and agreeing with wrong points.
The first time it was "inconsistency, the scan where it takes place takes priority. The moon's not smaller and you should take the scan of where the moon's being split instead of the inconsistent small scans".
When it didn't work, now it's "he just moved the pieces back together, it's not inconsistent, you're being dishonest and the animators didn't make any mistake".
I'm sick of this shit.
Last edited:
- 29,892
- 25,063
@LordGriffin1000 Since you gave a tentative agreement before, I wonder if your position has changed since the beginning of the thread?
- 14,958
- 8,917
ill respond to this because i consider KT a friend, but really you can address my argument if you disagree with it without @ my name, given that i asked that i didn't want to be involved further.
The light around the moon comes from the blade as it bursts out.
The Split happens several seconds after the beam and the light have dissipated
Kakashi and the Raikage's reactions are happening at the same time from different POV's but what they are reacting to is the blade being swung and cutting the moon in real time not the split. the split has not occurred yet.
This is why there's a glow around the moon and why literally seconds after this, we get an announcement that the moon has been split. this 1:1 consistency with what we just watched, the only difference is that we are viewing it from different POV. hence why they are called reaction shots.
However unlike the movie which cuts away at Kakashi saying "what" the novel just continues.
"The moon has been cut in half!” “What!?” When Kakashi looked up, there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface. There was ten minutes left until the space-time chakra cannon would fire. There was nothing Kakashi could do but pray for the safety of Naruto and the others."
"Move! I’ll shoot!” When the Raikage laid his hand on his younger brother’s shoulder, Kumogakure’s astronomer came running from behind them. “Raikage-sama! Shinobi characters on the moon… Kyuubi is writing something on the moon’s surface!” “What!?”
Kakashi peered through a telescope. In the telescopes round field of vision, he could see the back of Kurama, on all fours writing shinobi characters on the moon’s surface. Both missions… completed? Both missions completed! He recalled the scene in the Hokage room where he had given Shikamaru’s team the “two missions.”
NO?, for someone claiming that others need to rewatch the movie, you seem to not understand what cinematic timing is. kakashi and the Raikage reactions aren't happening right after the moon gets split.
The light around the moon comes from the blade as it bursts out.
The Split happens several seconds after the beam and the light have dissipated
Kakashi and the Raikage's reactions are happening at the same time from different POV's but what they are reacting to is the blade being swung and cutting the moon in real time not the split. the split has not occurred yet.
This is why there's a glow around the moon and why literally seconds after this, we get an announcement that the moon has been split. this 1:1 consistency with what we just watched, the only difference is that we are viewing it from different POV. hence why they are called reaction shots.
However unlike the movie which cuts away at Kakashi saying "what" the novel just continues.
"The moon has been cut in half!” “What!?” When Kakashi looked up, there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface. There was ten minutes left until the space-time chakra cannon would fire. There was nothing Kakashi could do but pray for the safety of Naruto and the others."
No because they blatantly needed the astronomers to tell them about the Kanji on the moon, i have no idea why your bringing up false equivalences
"Move! I’ll shoot!” When the Raikage laid his hand on his younger brother’s shoulder, Kumogakure’s astronomer came running from behind them. “Raikage-sama! Shinobi characters on the moon… Kyuubi is writing something on the moon’s surface!” “What!?”
Kakashi peered through a telescope. In the telescopes round field of vision, he could see the back of Kurama, on all fours writing shinobi characters on the moon’s surface. Both missions… completed? Both missions completed! He recalled the scene in the Hokage room where he had given Shikamaru’s team the “two missions.”
I agree
Last edited:
- 15,385
- 11,239
Yes, I'm neutral right now. I haven't seen the movie in forever so I can't give much in the way of arguments.
- 21,143
- 30,099
Do you know what this means?NO?, for someone claiming that others need to rewatch the movie, you seem to not understand what cinematic timing is. kakashi and the Raikage reactions aren't happening right after the moon gets split.
The light around the moon comes from the blade as it bursts out.
The Split happens several seconds after the beam and the light have dissipated
Kakashi and the Raikage's reactions are happening at the same time from different POV's but what they are reacting to is the blade being swung and cutting the moon in real time not the split. the split has not occurred yet.
This is why there's a glow around the moon and why literally seconds after this, we get an announcement that the moon has been split. this 1:1 consistency with what we just watched, the only difference is that we are viewing it from different POV. hence why they are called reaction shots.
However unlike the movie which cuts away at Kakashi saying "what" the novel just continues.
"The moon has been cut in half!” “What!?” When Kakashi looked up, there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface. There was ten minutes left until the space-time chakra cannon would fire. There was nothing Kakashi could do but pray for the safety of Naruto and the others."
It means that they saw the moon getting cut in half, but they don't see the actual cut.
The argument is "they can see a hundred kilometer cut from earth", but they can't. They just see the effects from said light instead of being able to see the actual cut, which ***** on "it's big cause they can see it from earth".
You said "There's also the fact that the novelization supports the split being large enough to see from earth", but they don't see it.
That's probably why it said "there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface" instead of "the moon split", because they can't even see the split, cause the split is at the x axis when they're looking from the Z, which is why every other visual of the moon from earth doesn't show it being split, cause they don't see it split.
"A fissure on the moon's surface" means "the surface of the moon broke". They'd just say "the shit split", but they don't even see it from the right angle.
Saying they saw the moon cut in half when we can literally see what they see and they don't see it doesn't make sense.
And they need the astronomer to tell them that the moon split.
Even the Raikage said "what's happening" after they revealed the split cause he couldn't tell it split.
Same with Kakashi in the movie. If he could easily see the split, he wouldn't need to question the light.
- 9,060
- 9,337
Honestly, after reading everything, I agree most with this stance.
- 29,892
- 25,063
@LephyrTheRevanchist Would it be fair to say you're Neutral then, but fine with a "Possibly" if it is added?
- 14,958
- 8,917
Did you actually read my post before commenting, nearly every single point you made here is addressed in my original post, go reread it again.
a long, narrow opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in rock or earth."
The split happens after the sword and light have dissipated
once again every single thing here is addressed
they see both which is whats supported in the novel, because kakashi looks up right after being told and confirms it
I never said that they can see the full hundred kilometer cut from earth. just that the damage as in the split that was happening was visible. and for it to be visible by the naked from that distance doesnt support the split being so small.
no because those are two separate scenes your conflating, this is addressed in my first post. go reread it
they do
meaning of Fissure: "
a long, narrow opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in rock or earth."
that's irrelevant you would still notice irregularities if the cut was on that scale. the moon isnt a 2-D sticker. and the fact that they do notice these fissures means that the scale is exponentially larger that what the later scenes depict.
every other visual that your referencing happens before the cut
your making things up, fissure has a very specific meaning your avoiding using.
we dont see what they see when the moon actually splits. we see everything prior to that, go reread my post
they don't, kakashi literally confirms this by looking up.
go read my prior post, it addresses this. the raikage and kakashi's scenes are happening concurrently
because the split happens afterwards not during the time the beam travels.
The split happens after the sword and light have dissipated
once again every single thing here is addressed
- 9,060
- 9,337
Indeed!
- 21,143
- 30,099
Ykw
I'm not even gonna bitch and moan about semantics
These are the shots from far after the moon is split from the POV of the people on earth
Where is the split
I'm not even gonna bitch and moan about semantics
These are the shots from far after the moon is split from the POV of the people on earth
Where is the split
- 2,888
- 1,788
Yet in the movie they don't see the fissure and it's on the side where they can't see till the lady says it was cut in half. We should we take the novel over the movie that gives us the visual?
- 21,143
- 30,099
Novel says that meteor that dwarves the Hokage rock is 10 meters long. That's just me though
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #231
I’d concede further arguing to this conclusion btw, but I’ll keep going if peeps wanna keep going. Just thought I’d put it out there that I’m satisfied with a partial rating being accepted.
- 729
- 454
Really guys? Have we just thrown irl knowledge out? The Split happens where the light and dark sides of the moon meets. Irl, the moon is tidal locked so it doesn’t rotate. The POV of the ppl of earth is that of the Light Side of the moon and they see the light of Toneri’s GWRE creating the ring they see. THE SPLIT IS NOT FACING EARTH, IT’S PARALLEL TO EARTH!
- 151
- 100
- 729
- 454
Even though you’re not wrong, this is a nitpick…
Point is, the cut doesn’t happen across the half of the moon facing earth.
- 151
- 100
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #236
The direction of the cut is beyond irrelevant here, what the hell happened... says the man who knows and is just being coy
Anyways, I apologize for not having had time to give this thread attention, I'm about to graduate college so I've been a little busy, y'all don't mind if I put this thread on hold over the weekend ;P
Anyways, I apologize for not having had time to give this thread attention, I'm about to graduate college so I've been a little busy, y'all don't mind if I put this thread on hold over the weekend ;P
- 10,291
- 17,318
First
- 1,559
- 1,141
2nd
- 17,043
- 22,911
- Thread starter
- #239
It's back @AlexSoloVaAlFuturo and here is my responses to @KingTempest , let the mayhem continue
No, I am 100% deducing an event. We explicitly see the moon split apart by a wide margin and then afterwards it's no longer as far apart. I am deducing that the Tenseigan pulled the halves together.
Splitting something in half =/= both halves slamming into each other and destroying each other completely. One is a minor inconvenience the other is ass.
We see the gap vary from its initial showing of 10s of km to its later showings of 10s of meters. It isn't like the split is varying from 10s of km to 1s of km to 100s of metes to 10s of meters, such that it is wholely inconsistent. It's very consistent that the moon split goes from really wide to not wide.
Not only is that not inherently true, but it's flat out not provable. Maybe they should have heard stuf maybe not.
I certainly agree that the moon split is emphasized, I wonder why... The contents wouldn't fly out of the moon no, so there are no issues there.
The difference is moving 1 million needles vs moving 1 million and 1 needles, the difference in travel is not significant to impact the work done to a noticeable degree at all.
No, my arguments are all "what likely happened" and I've been explaining that the entire thread. My arguments are all based on claims of likelihood.
I hate to do you like this, but those other feats aren't relevant to the feat I'm arguing. I'm not required to respond to them, nor does it harm or help my argument to do so. If you wanna talk about other feats, do it in another thread.
You misunderstand the point, when you can no longer optically resolve something, you cannot use it to comment explicitly on its size.
- 21,143
- 30,099
So we back, welcome back ppl
You can argue both your argument and mine, that it's
A. An inconsistency
B. Him moving it
You're failing to
That's like me saying that lifting a weight up 4 more meters from 4m off the ground and pushing it down 8 meters would be the same as just pushing it down 4 meters instead of pulling it up more.
You're saying likely because you have the notion that your interpretation of the split's changes were the most supported, as saying "something happened" > "it's an inconsistency".
You're looking at only the split.
Things being compared to the moon's split like Kurama, the golem, the sword, and more.
You're saying "the moon split, one time it's showed to be big, next time it's showed to be smaller, so I'll say that instead of an inconsistency, the size just changed in canon".
There are later instances of the moon split being larger than it is in later scenes, although not to the extent of hundreds of kilometers.
We see those pieces not come together, we watch the pieces stay stagnant even though they could've freely closed the gap, just like the assumption you're giving is saying.
Those didn't come together.
Saying "there's a gap and different distances, he could've pulled it together", when we see another gap with different distances and we don't see those pieces move together should say something
There are dozens of different ways to comment on the size of the technique, aka the sword.
The sword's width being the split distance, as we see every part the light touches is destroyed.
Noticing its dimensions and looking at the outline of the blade vs the small light coming from the sides of it
It would be incredulous as **** to say "still can't measure its accurate size cause of the light". The light isn't that bright to where we can't figure out the size based on its clear and easy borders.
This isn't the sun. It's a glowing sword.
Not really.
You can argue both your argument and mine, that it's
A. An inconsistency
B. Him moving it
I don't think cutting something like a fortress in half counts as a minor inconvenience
We see many different things in comparison to the gap. The bijuu that was next to the diameter of the cut that wasn't that big being compared to a cut that can be calced to thousands of meters in size, the sword that we can measure from, even the fragments itself, and much more.
You're failing to
aight
They would fly to other sides inside the moon. The artificial sun, the fortress, everything inside the moon would've been destroyed and sent flying.
You can't tell me that yanking something back just to push it back to the direction you pulled it from is that insignificant from just pushing it forward.
That's like me saying that lifting a weight up 4 more meters from 4m off the ground and pushing it down 8 meters would be the same as just pushing it down 4 meters instead of pulling it up more.
Your arguments are "what could've happened".
You're saying likely because you have the notion that your interpretation of the split's changes were the most supported, as saying "something happened" > "it's an inconsistency".
You're looking at only the split.
Things being compared to the moon's split like Kurama, the golem, the sword, and more.
You're saying "the moon split, one time it's showed to be big, next time it's showed to be smaller, so I'll say that instead of an inconsistency, the size just changed in canon".
There are later instances of the moon split being larger than it is in later scenes, although not to the extent of hundreds of kilometers.
We see those pieces not come together, we watch the pieces stay stagnant even though they could've freely closed the gap, just like the assumption you're giving is saying.
Those didn't come together.
Saying "there's a gap and different distances, he could've pulled it together", when we see another gap with different distances and we don't see those pieces move together should say something
That was a counter to a useless point, ignore it
Nada.
There are dozens of different ways to comment on the size of the technique, aka the sword.
The sword's width being the split distance, as we see every part the light touches is destroyed.
Noticing its dimensions and looking at the outline of the blade vs the small light coming from the sides of it
It would be incredulous as **** to say "still can't measure its accurate size cause of the light". The light isn't that bright to where we can't figure out the size based on its clear and easy borders.
This isn't the sun. It's a glowing sword.
- Status
Similar threads
