Ivysaur · Base Set (BS) #30

3 comments

1. 

   Blob Takeshi

   (5 years ago)

   The prototype of this card had the attacks switched around, as well as less shading on Ivysaur and a different background.

   Reply
2. 

   Ambassador

   (1 year ago)

   Currently, there is some confusion going around on the internet about the idea that “Ivysaur isn’t supposed to be blue, it’s supposed to be green” after a Twitter account with a non-trivial following shared updated scans of artwork from a supplementary book released for Pocket Monsters Gold & Silver in Japan showed a definitively greener Ivysaur.

   This is causing a lot of people to assume that this card’s Ivysaur is “wrong”.

   Definitively not the case. This card’s coloration of Ivysaur as blue is correct here – however, the scan in question is correct, and Ivysaur *is* green there. Let me try and explain;

   – This is the artwork Ken Sugimori made for Pocket Monsters Red & Green in 1996. It is teal/blue here.
   – The artwork showing the green Ivysaur originates from artwork Sugimori made for Pocket Monsters Blue (released in 1998). It was green there.. usually. Difference in print quality, paper stock, print *settings*, etc. could cause variations, so that sometimes Japanese texts have ‘PMB Ivysaur’ with the green as scanned, and other times Japanese texts had ‘PMB Ivysaur’ with a blue/teal.

   A lot of people have been getting confused for a number of reasons.
   – A lack of awareness about the distinction between Sugimori’s RG and B artwork. The rest of the world got this artwork all at the same time 1998/1999, so they didn’t really recognize there was a difference, or that the B artwork was occasionally acting as ‘revisions’ to the 1996 artwork. Not specifically on the topic of colors, but HelixChamber has a decent write-up on the matter of Blue changing a number of Pokémon’s *physical* designs – with Venomoth being a prime example[1]. (Something similar happens when some folks finally do see the RG sprites of some Pokémon, and assume they are “wrong”. Not exactly.)
   – Confused memory, possibly. Ivysaur was, at any point in time for North American fans, blue or green on various promotional materials, TCG, game, etc… and I think in general, the anime appearance would tend to override things in people’s minds. Ivysaur was, I think, always blue in the anime. So some random guy showing up and saying “um, actually, you guys got it wrong and Ivysaur is green” sounds ridiculous. The information wasn’t well framed/contextualized when presented, and is now making the rounds on various websites with even less context and it’s becoming quite a mess[2].
   – All North American/international promotional materials, as far as I know, ONLY ever used a version of B Ivysaur’s artwork where it looks blue[3]. The Twitter account incorrectly suggested that NA/EU/etc. fans online were to blame for this “wrong” color propagating because of the use of poor scanners, etc. that they then posted online and created this false impression, but the scanning by fans wouldn’t exactly be the problem – they were already scanning, if you like, a “defective image.” It’s tough to know whether NOA had done this intentionally – did they tweak or just choose the artwork to better fit Ivysaur’s anime appearance? – or just ran with a non-optimized image provided to them and never questioned it? [4]

   For what it’s worth, as an older Pokémon fan, it’s becoming really frustrating to see some younger fans conduct themselves with a tone of “everything everyone did before us in terms of preservation/archiving/etc. was inadequate, dumb, and wrong”; I mean, there’s no doubt stuff *was* any/all three of those things[5], but it wasn’t universally the case. This entire snafu could’ve been avoided by talking to an older fan for all of 5 minutes before going live with the post.

   tl;dr – RG Ivysaur was blue. B Ivysaur was green, except in some Japanese material (due to variance in print/paper quality/etc.), and in all North American material (for whatever reason).

   [1] https://helixchamber.com/2018/10/17/gen-1-vs-2/
   [2] e.g. https://www.ign.com/articles/pokmons-original-artwork-was-so-much-better-than-it-looked-in-the-manuals
   [3] You can see the correct version of Blue Ivysaur, I think, only on Erika’s Ivysaur. WOTC was presumably getting artwork more directly from Creatures and/or Media Factory, rather than going through NOA for it. NOA seems to be a weak link in the chain here.
   [4] This could be the start point for an essay on how even unintended mistakes in localization still counts as localization. I’ll spare the reader.. this time.
   [5] There’s no doubt some stuff going on is any/all 3 of those things even today. It’s tricky, but if you’re going to play at being a “archivist” or treating this as “real research”, then you have to accept the scientific method will come into it – part of that method means accepting you’ll only occasionally have the last word on anything, as later efforts will often upend your own work today.

   Reply
   • 

     TwylisAmbassador

     (1 year ago)

     There’s also an underlying desparation to create “news”. Like, the Bulbasaur line has always been fairly inconsistent in its coloration? They all just hover between the blues/greens/teals, all this does is further contextualize that already-established pattern of inconsistency.

     Best example of how much this line can vary is probably their Mystery Dungeon sprites, which use a typical tealy blue for Ivysaur and Venusaur but a bright plant-y green for Bulbasaur.

     Reply