Spoiler One Piece Chapter 1069 Spoilers Discussion

Who will fight Kizaru ?


  • Total voters
    329
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are discussing it in the context of writing. By "objective metric" the context we are discussing it in are about rules and definitions. Not facts. Foreshadowing rules aren't fact. Following the premise, body and conclusion structure aren't facts. You do know what context is right? Or are you going to continue to play the semantics game?
BROOO! storytelling varies depending on time and place. That is the literal definition of objective which doesn't exist in storytelling. You yourself said you don't know shit about storytelling yet you claim to KNOW there is objectivity to it? sound to me like you don't want to admit it's just your subjective opinion. You have a bad case of Ameribrain my dude.
 
People are speculating why Luffy used G5, some say it's because it's just a normal use of a zoan fruit, some say that it's because he wanted to toy with Lucci, some say that it's because Lucci required G5 to be treaten like this.
Truth is Oda just wants to do this Looney Tunes crap with Luffy :josad:
I thought with times it might become a bit more serious but doesn't seem to be the case
There is nothing that serious that Lucci can offer unlike Yonkos and Admirals. Of course part of fight always has these kind of moments.
 
Btw zero awakened ancient zoans, one awakened mythical zoan, 6 awakened normal zoans
shocking stat esp for the ancient Zoans considering most of the executives in kaido's crew had one

as for mythical tho
out of the folks who had one

could only see one more who I thought should have awakened theirs (kaido).


orochi (def not)
yamato(no) and Marco (toss up)
 
shocking stat esp for the ancient Zoans considering most of the executives in kaido's crew had one

as for mythical tho
out of the folks who had one

could only see one more who I thought should have awakened theirs (kaido).


orochi (def not)
yamato(no) and Marco (toss up)
Ancient zoans are never gonna get the exposure they got in Wano. Always was of the mindset at least Jack should have gotten awakening, since he has nothing else as a calamity going for him.
 
He likes to see his haters suffer.
He's a sociopath then.
Post automatically merged:

@lee33 Art is all about interpretation dude. And interpretation is SUBJECTIVE by definition! rules in storytelling come and go as the medium evolves. Objective truths never change, they are universal truths. 2+2=4, the earth is round, your mom sucked my dick. THOSE are objective truths.
 
Last edited:
People are speculating why Luffy used G5, some say it's because it's just a normal use of a zoan fruit, some say that it's because he wanted to toy with Lucci, some say that it's because Lucci required G5 to be treaten like this.
Truth is Oda just wants to do this Looney Tunes crap with Luffy :josad:
I thought with times it might become a bit more serious but doesn't seem to be the case
it makes no sense to use other forms when g5 does it all without crazy drawbacks tbf.

its also the form where hes the most "free"
 
BROOO! storytelling varies depending on time and place. That is the literal definition of objective which doesn't exist in storytelling. You yourself said you don't know shit about storytelling yet you claim to KNOW there is objectivity to it? sound to me like you don't want to admit it's just your subjective opinion. You have a bad case of Ameribrain my dude.
If Oda wrote Luffy raping Nami next chapter is that good writing to you? And then in the next chapter Oda wrote Naruto and Sasuke raping Luffy, is that good writing to you? And in the next chapter Oda just wrote "hi, how are you guys doing today, I don't want to write One Piece because I am too lazy to day so I am going to just write a bunch of nonsense of Luffy just raping every character". Since there are no objective metrics, then that means that can be considered good writing, right? You see where I am going with this? There are fundamental rules in story telling dude.
 
Was looking back at ch 1044 when we first saw G4. Luffy was making kaido bleed with raw strength alone, just by slamming him real hard into the ground.

imo anyone below YC1 would get negged by that move.
 
If Oda wrote Luffy raping Nami next chapter is that good writing to you? And then in the next chapter Oda wrote Naruto and Sasuke raping Luffy, is that good writing to you? And in the next chapter Oda just wrote "hi, how are you guys doing today, I don't want to write One Piece because I am too lazy to day so I am going to just write a bunch of nonsense of Luffy just raping every character". Since there are no objective metrics, then that means that can be considered good writing, right? You see where I am going with this? There are fundamental rules in story telling dude.
The story that follows to my liking are fundamental.
 
If Oda wrote Luffy raping Nami next chapter is that good writing to you? And then in the next chapter Oda wrote a Naruto raping Luffy, is that good writing to you? And in the next chapter Oda just wrote "hi, how are you guys doing today, I don't want to write One Piece because I am too lazy to day so I am going to just write a bunch of nonsense of Luffy just raping every character". Since there are no objective metrics, then that means that can be considered good writing, right? You see where I am going with this? There are fundamental rules in story telling dude.
NO YOU FUCKING DINGUS. I would hate that. I'd never claim that would be good writing. But it is not in definition bad writing. It is wrong on so many fucking levels but at this point you're just straw manning. It's just the definition of objective dude, let it go, go be ignorant somewhere else.
 
It must suck to be Lucci
>be an orphan
>get sold to the WG
>train all your life to be as strong as you can be, because that’s the only way your life will have any value
>get beat by this shitty rubber boy who hasn’t worked half as hard as you, just because he has the special god fruit
 
NO YOU FUCKING DINGUS. I would hate that. I'd never claim that would be good writing. But it is not in definition bad writing. It is wrong on so many fucking levels but at this point you're just straw manning. It's just the definition of objective dude, let it go, go be ignorant somewhere else.
So you know that is bad writing and yet you don't want to admit it because it contradicts your statement that there are no fundamental metric in story telling. Story telling has fundamental rules dude. You can't just randomly write whatever you want and call it good writing. ANd that isn't a strawman, you claimed there are no metric in writing therefore by that defintion anything can be considered good writing hence I gave you an example of something that is clearly bad writing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top