History Headscratchers / MagiNation

** Ironically, they did keep some designs from the Card Game, and not from the GBC game, such as Motash. She has been almost completely translated to the show intact in terms of design. Maybe its because I first connected through the show, but I get the feeling that the TV show isn't based that much on the GC game, but is rather parallel to the GBC game, branching off instead into an AU. And, unless you are an extremely dedicated fan and have figured out storylines and personality, the card game has more flexibility in terms of plot, allowing for such changes. I get the feeling that because the game was released when the cards were being released, and because it gave exposition rather easily, any changes it made were rather minor. But, when the TV show came along and provided an alternate interpretation of events seen in the card game, people called them out on it. In all respects, the differences are probably what you'd expect to see if both Creator/MichelangeloBuonarroti and Creator/LeonardoDaVinci both painted the ''Art/MonaLisa''. Michelangelo's wouldn't be any less valid an interpretation, but folks would call him out on it anyway. Do you see my point?

** Ironically, they did keep some designs from the Card Game, and not from the GBC game, such as Motash. She has been almost completely translated to the show intact in terms of design. Maybe its because I first connected through the show, but I get the feeling that the TV show isn't based that much on the GC game, but is rather parallel to the GBC game, branching off instead into an AU. And, unless you are an extremely dedicated fan and have figured out storylines and personality, the card game has more flexibility in terms of plot, allowing for such changes. I get the feeling that because the game was released when the cards were being released, and because it gave exposition rather easily, any changes it made were rather minor. But, when the TV show came along and provided an alternate interpretation of events seen in the card game, people called them out on it. In all respects, the differences are probably what you'd expect to see if both Michelangelo and Leonardo Davinci bo painted the Mona Lisa. Michelangelo's wouldn't be any less valid an interpretation, but folks would call him out on it anyway. Do you see my point?

* The conflict between the Guardian Hyrens of Arderial and the Core is probably the biggest plot hole in the show. Its just mind boggling how glaring it is and I think it happened because the writers wrote themselves into a corner by having void energy be 100% evil but native core creatures and the hyren being good when not corrupted by shadow magi. Which is only part of what's wrong with the show trying to pull a BlackAndWhiteMorality world but not keeping it consistent.

*** As someone who played all of 10 minutes of the GBC game before I got fed up with how dark everything is (so hard to see...) and never played the CCG, I can answer this one. The show is bad. Too much exposition dump without interesting characters to distract from it. Also, really cliche everything.

** I am wondering how much of the hate has to do with the actual quality, and how much is about TheyChangedItNowItSucks or {{Adaptation Decay}}.

** I am wondering how much of the hate has to do with the actual quality, and how much is about "They Changed It Now It Sucks" or {{Adaptation Decay}}.

** I am wondering how much of the hate has to do with the actual quality, and how much is about "They Changed It,Now It Sucks" or {{Adaptation Decay}}.

** I am wondering how much of the hate has to do with the actual quality, and how much is about TheyChangedIt,NowItSucks/AdaptationDecay.

** I am wondering how much of the hate has to do with the actual quality, and how much is about TheyChangedItNowItSucks/AdaptationDecay.

*** "At least it exists?" That has never, ever been solid justification for anything. I suppose I don't quite understand your questions, though. Those are discussion questions that don't really fit on this page. The point is this: we don't like the TV series because it is a bad replacement for something that we loved and grew up with. There is no way to make the TV series "better" without destroying it and replacing it with something truer to the original. If you would like to discuss more, I have created a topic in the discussion forum for Magi-Nation.

**** Well, at least it exists, and serves to draw attention to the original for those who are willing to look. Out of curiosity, what parts of the show that you've seen are well done? Pretty hard question, yes, but still valid. Out of what there is, what are the pros to the TV show? What could be kept, if it was completely redone? Would you feel better if there was a line that said "Based off of the CCG by 2i Entertainment"? In short, if you see the show as broken, how would you fix it, without completely destroying the show, as much as you want to? Even if these arguements are seen as negative, worthless, or biased, even an arguement can draw attention to a cause.

*** If taken from a more professionally objective point of view, I feel safe in saying that when comparing the artwork, plots, characters, and overall storylines of the TV series versus the original series, the original series would win by a landslide simply because there was much more detail and creator devotion and the storylines were immense and pieced together wonderfully. The TV series is modeled as a cheap cash-in as a Pokemon rip-off as the troper above me said... it's the fact that this is so painfully obvious that makes the TV series such a distress for original fans. Something that we loved was replaced by an obviously cheap knock-off that basically announces that the only reason it exists is to make whatever money it can.

* I think it's because it gets replaced with the villian trying to get him to not trust others instead. That's not even getting into how there's no mention of Kyros at all, that I've seen. Instead, it's replaced with Orwin going on about the 'final dreamer' or something. Probably the same thing, but that's to be expected with everything ''else'' in canon that the cartoon tosses out.
* It's been a while since I've played the game, but one thing that always bothered me was the whole Magus Kyros thing. Gia tells Tony the prophecy and everything, and even though he fulfills every statement pretty much to a "t," Gia later informs Tony that, oops, she was wrong, and Tony ISN'T the Magus Kyros... why? because the prophecy is a warning. How does that even make sense?

*** Actually, we kind of are saying the TV show is horrid. It's downright inferior in every aspect compared to the original content made by 2i. What exactly can you say in favor about the TV series other than using the lame excuse, "It's supposed to appeal to kids."? How about we look at it this way--imagine that the TV Series came first. Let's assume that it was completely original in its time. Even then, it would still be considered a mediocre cliched kid's show full of completely generic characters who are all Large Hams, extremely predictable Aesop plots that basically has no way to defend itself from being called a last straw Pokemon ripoff. Then, pretend that after that, a card game is made based on this TV series called Magi-Nation Duel, along with a GBC game both featuring far superior handling of the artwork, a far more mature atmosphere and more interesting characters. In the end, it wouldn't make a difference. The original TV series would still be considered pretty forgettable and the card and cartridge games would still gather a cult following. People would say, "Gosh, I can't believe such a great game is based off such a silly TV series. It's amazing what a change of staff can do, isn't it?" That Mona Lisa analogy is interesting, but it only applies if both pieces are of about the same quality, even if in different styles--and the TV Series doesn't even approach the quality of the material it was based on.

** I'll take your analogy and run with it: Say Leonardo paints the Mona Lisa. It's hung in galleries, and people see it, and love it and all that... then, say 5-10 years later, Michelangelo paints a picture of a woman with a slight smile and calls it the Mona Lisa. Those who saw Leonardo's Mona Lisa would argue that, no, Michelangelo did not paint the Mona Lisa. Disregarding copyright issues and all that business, the people who saw and knew the original Mona Lisa will be forever biased against the second one in one way or another regardless of how much "better" Michelangelo's was. Similarly, if Michelangelo's Mona Lisa was the first one you saw, and then you saw Leonardo's, you would have a bias against Leonardo's... however, once you learn that Leonardo's came first, you wouldn't be as biased against it, but you would still, more than likely, prefer the one you saw first as the "original." And that's what this is all about. We aren't mad because the TV series isn't "good" or it's "bad." We're mad because what was original to us has been killed and replaced by something else calling itself original.

** Ironically, they did keep some designs from the Card Game, and not from the GBC game, such as Motash. She has been almost completely translated to the show intact in terms of design. Maybe its because I first connected through the show, but I get the feeling that the TV show isn't based that much on the GC game, but is rather parallel to the GBC game, branching off instead into an AU. And, unless you are an extremely dedicated fan and have figured out storylines and personality, the card game has more flexibility in terms of plot, allowing for such changes. I get the feeling that because the game was released when the cards were being released, and because it gave exposition rather easily, any changes it made were rather minor. But, when the TV show came along and provided an alternate interpretation of events seen in the card game, people called them out on it. In all respects, the differences are probably what you'd expect to see if both Michelangelo and Leonardo Davinci bo painted the Mona Lisa. Michelangelo's wouldn't be any less valid an interpretation, but folks would call him out on it anyway. Do you see my point?

*** I'm sorry, but your arguments hold absolutely no water, especially when you point out all the differences between the current TV series and the old TCG/Video games... in fact, that only proves my point. We aren't talking about whether the changes were positive or negative. When most people who grew up with the TCG and video games look at the TV series, they do not see what they grew up with. They see something with the same name, but very little of the same story is there... in fact, the same story we grew up with has been changed so drastically that it is barely even close to the original story. Call us hipsters or whatever, but it's hard for us to accept something as "Magi-Nation" when the new plot and characters aren't even close to what we grew up with.

** I suppose that I should have been more specific in what I was saying, or rather, trying to say. You argue that because of the art evolution, the fact that it was specifically written for a new generation and as an entertaining education program, as well as facts such as the character's personality changes, the specific fact that it is not the EXACT same as the original, are all reasons to boycott it? From my perspective, they took elements from the show, and ran with it.
Strag, for example. In the Card game, his personality can roughly (and I am not 100% sure on this) be interpreted to be headstrong and reckless. In the show, it's the opposite. He's cool and collected, a core stalker. Presumeably, the creator's reasonings ran something like what follows: Tony has been changed to a personality more readily adapted to a younger audience. Edyn, an expy of both Tryn and Eidon, serves as the main source of exposition. So, thus, they needed a character that could have some dark elements, and also serve as a foil to Tony. Strag's main Creature in the card game is a Giant Parmalag, a drean creature reknowned for both its patience, and it's defensive ability. And later, near the end of the card game, Strag leaves his home in the underneath to become an adventurer. Add in some essense of Yaki in the core stalker and the many near corruptions into a shadow magi, and you have the perfect foil for Tony. Not so perfect for fans. My main point, though, is this: You argue that the changes were negative, because it isn't the same. But you also say that you have only seen a few episodes, and then, you say that it is through rose coloured glasses. I understand that it isn't the same, and could very well be a new medium. It's the same with most mediums translated to a new genre, say, book to movie. My question is this: Why compare it to the past, when, if you can compare it only to itself, as something that is written for a young audience, you can enjoy it for what it is, and not what it could be? It makes no sense to me, and I'm not sure that it ever will.

** Honestly, you could boil a ton of stories down to "Kid from other world comes, has to collect a series of items and seals evil away for good," so I don't think that exactly fair to say it is basically the same story. I grew up on the Gameboy game and the TCG, and, after watching a few episodes of the new TV series, I can safely say that it is NOT the same story. Yeah, there are characters/relics/dream creatures that have the same name in both, but their personalities and effects don't quite translate to this new medium. However, the biggest beef we have with the TV series is that the events that transpire in the TV series vs the Gameboy game or even the TCG share very little similarity. If you changed the name of the series to something like "Dreamlands" and simply changed all of the characters'/relics'/dream creatures' names, you could pass it off as something original. There is almost no similarity to what our generation grew up with.

* Why do folks have such a vibe against the TV show? Maybe it's because I started with the TV show, but aside from Ugger, most of the reasons stated on the main page for complaining are actually invalid. Also, "What do you mean it's for kids?" is in full effect here. Unlike the card game, the TV show was written as edutainment. It's also a Canadian-Korean production, and both cultures are a lot mroe tolerant of violence and strong concepts in kid's programming than the US. So, when a teen, a young adult who grew up with the series, or a kid a little older than the target audience tunes in, they find the story hard to absorb due to all the information. But if you compare the basic plotline (Kid from earth called Tony has to collect special stones to seal away evil for good and find a way home), as well as most of the creatures, they're actually pretty similar to the card game. I've gone through an online card compendium, looking for relics, magi, or creatures mentioned in the show, and in almost all instances, they're almost completely identical, and understandable in a different style.

* It's been a while since I've played the game, but one thing that always bothered me was the whole Magus Kyros thing. Gia tells Tony the prophecy and everything, and even though he fulfills every statement pretty much to a "t," Gia later informs Tony that, oops, she was wrong, and Tony ISN'T the Magus Kyros... why? because the prophecy is a warning. How does that even make sense?

* I think it's because it gets replaced with the villian trying to get him to not trust others instead.

That's not even getting into how there's no mention of Kyros at all, that I've seen. Instead, it's replaced with Orwin going on about the 'final dreamer' or something. Probably the same thing, but that's to be expected with everything ''else'' in canon that the cartoon tosses out.