Gen 1 fans of Pokémon, especially those who played Red and Blue versions, can now find a bit more peace regarding the sorrowful character of Cubone. For years, it was known that Cubone never removes its skull helmet due to which nobody has ever seen its real face. However, recent discoveries have proven this notion wrong.
Key Points:
- Discovery in Picture Book: A 90s coloring book titled Pokémon Picture Diary: Let's Go With Pikachu! by Keiko Fukuyama features a page showing Cubone playing a Pokémon flute without its skull helmet. This indicates that at some point, Cubone was able to take off the skull.
- Additional Evidence: There are also various products released over the years displaying Cubone’s face when its skull is not on, including a Pokémon card and a plush toy where users can unstitch the skull for it to be revealed.
Do you believe that Pokémon’s creators intentionally included these revelations in their products to subtly provide emotional closure or was it merely coincidental? How do you feel about the revelation of Cubone's face being out there for all to see, given its symbolic representation as a motherless Pokémon?
The story behind Cubone never made any sense to me. Maybe I missed something.
But his skull helmet has the whole sad sorry about Mommy attached to it, yadda yadda. Ok, so that story fits for one specimen, or maybe a couple. But is there some massive killing spree on Marrowaks out there that all their mothers die after a single kid? How is this species not extinct?
Their population is cutting in at least half every generation, and for some reason, no offspring are ever seen before their mother perishes, is dead long enough to pry out her skull, and have it somehow fit conveniently as a hat. Or maybe they're pushing down great grandma's skull, I don't know.
But this species never made any sense, because they all have it. If it was just a particular one everything makes sense, but this is some insane shit.
You're trying to make sense of a cartoon/video game using the "rule of cool" over actual logic. You're gonna give yourself an aneurysm, man.
I just realized that while I typed another reply below lol
There was a theory going about that they were charmanders, hence the shape of them and the charzard style skull.
There was also the one where they are kid Kangaskans who lost their parent.
This one just seems lazy. They're clearly not the same species directly. So do we have the whole evolution chat won't, or do some skip being Kangaskhan to become Marrowaks, or what? This has so many holes on its face.
Of course, these theories are made by kids while playing and trading cards. So it makes sense.
I know, I lump that one in with how Gengar and Clefable are the same, just a pallet swap.
But don't Chars die if their tail goes out? Or is this some weird cross evolution mechanic now?
maybe they just die emotionally
This level of over analysis about a children's brand was a joy to read
as silly as it sounds stuff like this is what prevented me from ever clicking with pokemon, even as a kid.
like sure this all seems kinda fun, and was perfectly fine for something on the fucking gameboy, but then it never really gained any depth?
Then you have the anime, which i actually kinda enjoyed because it had depth to it, they actually explored how things would work instead of it all just being set dressing for a dog fighting game.
The skull is not from the mom. The logic becomes a lot easier. It's just external bone growth for a helmet similar to a turtle's shell.
That's not what the pokedex entry says
except that they literally say it is.