Talk: Roku

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for the article "Roku". This space is for discussing changes to the article. Discussion on changing an infobox image or profile quote takes place on the appropriate project page for each. General discussion about the subject belongs to the comments, forum, or blog posts. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This article is currently rated Featured on the Avatar Wiki grading system.

Untitled

Roku isn't the shadowed master for each element in the opening sequence. The master for water is Pakku; fire is Azula and air is Aang. Not sure who Earth is.

Yeah, but he was the shadowed avatar guy who performs all four elements a bit later in the opening. I'm pretty sure that's what was meant in it in the first place.

Roku is the shadowed person doing the elemental demonstation on a rock, disappearing when airbending. It makes sense, since he was the last Avatar before Aang.User:PhantomS 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy Earthbending when Katara says "Earth"? That's not Roku, that's Toph's original character design. If you're mentioning the Avatar who uses all four elements, than it's right, it is Roku. Omnibender - Talk 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If Yangchen's predecessor is able to erupt four volcano's at the same time, why Roku's unable to shut one single volcano in his home island, event whe he using the Avatar State? Is it possible because he's too old already? --Indra i 03:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This did make me think, but this doesn't belong here. It should be made into this forum: Roku Worst than the Unnamed fire Avatar?. Vaznock - Talk 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sory Vaznock. Never visit forum before. Thank's! --Indra i 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to say sorry, Indra. Vaznock - Talk 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely old age caught uo with him.150.176.249.100 17:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

How could Roku have lived at the Fire Temple in 85 BSC if he was only born three years later in 82 BSC? He was born in 82 BSC, would have been told he was the Avatar at some point in 66 BSC (Avatars are canonically supposed to be informed when they turn sixteen), and he says that he returned to the Fire Nation after twelve years, so that must have been in 54 BSC. The five months at the Fire Temple could have been the end of 55 BSC to early 54 BSC, or it could have been entirely in 54 BSC. Also, on another note, Roku's argument with Sozin must have been in 37 BSC (seventeen years after he returned to the Fire Nation) since he and Sozin don't meet again after that until Roku's death at the volcano a further twenty-five years later in 12 BSC. Thoughts?

I think age at death is too young. When he's confronting Sozin 25 years before his death, he definitely looks older than 45 to me. 50 - 60 in that scene, at least, IMO. Esp since avatars don't seem to show physical aging till advanced years (just look at Kiyoshi--though she's an edge case I know). I think a better answer for age (unless canonical source available) would be "Unknown - appx 75 - 85 years old."

Misinformation?

So it says that Roku is the only Spirit World character to speak more than once, but that monkey speaks twice: when addressing Aang, and when Aang leaves...so I'm not sure if that's correct. 72.150.136.97 19:52, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Only time the Avatar was seen reincarnating? Nope!

The trivia currently states that Roku's death and reincarnation is the only time that we've seen that happen. however, as i've tried adding to both this page and wan's page, we also saw that happen when Wan died as well: after he passed away, his spirit was seen leaving his body, and then the fussing and crying of his reincarnation were heard.

considering that that is the only time something like that has happened, it is a notable trivia point. As Lady Lostris had argued, the fact that we didn't physically see the newborn baby's body means that we didn't see Wan reincarnate. however, as i said, we saw his spirit leave his body, and we know it ended up in a new body, as we heard him/her crying, meaning that we've seen the avatar reincarnate twice: first in atla when roku died, and again in LOK when wan died. the trivia should be changed to correct the inaccuracy.Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 15:37, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

We know it ended up in a body by deduction, but please, show me the screenshot where you can see the spirit that we have seen leave the body entering the new one. If you can, I won't contest the rewording of the trivia. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 22:30, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

As every Avatar has to reincarnate at some point, I fail to see the relevance in this. If it has to be added, I fail to see why it would be added to Wan's page. Per LL, hearing =/= seeing. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 22:41, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

here you can see his spirit leaving his body, and we heard the newborn crying when the screen was totally white. so it's not only by deduction or per the rule that we know he ended up in a new body: it was shown on screen. since that is the only time we've ever seen such a thing, we should note it in the trivia: roku's death was not, in fact, the only time we've seen the avatar reincarnating. i'm not saying we've seen the reincarnation (noun) more than once, but the actual act of reincarnation: we can't deny that fact.

@fru, this is for the roku page lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 15:39, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

We have that same screenshot on here, I even uploaded it, but that's not the reincarnation. That's just Raava dissipating. You hear the next incarnation, yes, but once more hearing =/= seeing. With Roku and Aang, you see Roku die and then Aang being born. That's seeing the reincarnation cycle. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 21:30, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

@I4 was this debate not initially begun on the Wan page? Regardless, this trivia point, should it go through, would also be added to the Wan page and I disagree. Where is this new Avatar? Show me that new Avatar, with Raava's spirit inside of it, and that trivia point is applicable. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 00:13, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

The light is not just raava disappating; for we know wan and raava were fused by that time. in this case, hearing confirms and completes the display of reincarnation. we see wan pass away, and then we hear the next one being born. we can't say that roku is the only one seen reincarnating. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 06:00, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Seen: past participle of 'see'. The word 'see' means 'perceive with the eyes; discern visually'. As you have failed to provide any visual evidence of this, I completely am against the change, and am honestly tired of repeating myself. To use Internet-slang, 'pics or it didn't happen'. Until you can provide such evidence, I refuse to continue such a back-and-forwards discussion. Frui (🌹 • 🐝 • 🐝🐝) 06:20, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

As i said before, actually physically showing us something isn't the only way the show shows us stuff. we see him die, his spirit disappate, and then we hear his neworn reincarnation(noun) crying. so as for "pics or it didn't happen", go rewatch the ep and listen to the part when he dies.

I'm quite suprised that you're both denying that is showing us the process of reincarnation(verb). Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 16:21, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

We're denying it because the series didn't show it. Seeing =/= hearing =/= implying. What you are trying to write off as "seen" is actually "implying", which is evidently in need to say that it's not the same. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 16:25, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

It was not just implied at all: that whole scene was about raava promising wan they'd be together forever, and then beginning the reincarnation cycle.

and even if it was merely implied, that still makes it the only time we've seen such a thing, thus making it trivia noteworthy. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 16:33, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "to imply": "Indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference."

Did we see the actual reincarnation cycle, thus the spirit leaving one body and then entering the next, or even just showing the birth of the next Avatar? No, we were not shown that. What did happen? We were shown the spirit leaving the body and then we heard a baby crying, which "indicates a truth by suggestion rather than explicit reference" aka implies the reincarnation cycle. It was not a showing. I seriously don't understand how you don't see that or how you can even think to argue any differently.

"and even if it was merely implied, that still makes it the only time we've seen such a thing, thus making it trivia noteworthy." ... so what, you now deem it noteworthy to state "this was the only time the reincarnation cycle was implied." Really?

I'm respectfully leaving this circle dance by once again affirming my opposition to readd the trivia since only Roku/Aang was the only showing of the reincarnation cycle. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 16:39, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Had the scene ended with wan's spirit disappating, then i would agree with you. but instead it continued, completing the reincarnation with the audio of the crying incarnate. i myself seriously can't understand how you don't consider that to be a display of reincarnation. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 16:45, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the only answer to your question of "can't understand how you don't consider that to be a display of reincarnation" I can offer is "because you don't read my responses or just don't care about the information given in them". I quite clearly just explained to you the difference between showing and implying something and even elaborated further how this is clearly implying something and not showing something. So seriously, for the last time hearing =/= seeing. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 16:48, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

But that's the thing: hearing is seeing. a story element doesn't have to be physcally seen in order to be part of the story. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 16:52, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

.... So you see with your ears? I never knew you were Daredevil ... Lady Lostris /  SOAP 16:54, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

haha, no not quite, although that is what blind people do...

all i'm saying is we can't discount something just because we didn't physically see it. if we were to do that, then there's a lot of editing to do to remove stuff that "isn't" shown. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 16:59, September 16, 2014 (UTC

We have never listed something to be shown when it was in fact not shown. We have listed stuff that has been implied, but then we either just say that it happened or we say that it was implied, not that it was shown, because after all "hearing =/= seeing" and "implying =/= seeing". And in case you were confused, the blind don't "see" by hearing. They compensate their loss of sight by overdeveloping their other senses, so that it may seem that they no longer need their sight to get by and eventually know the lay of the land well enough to get around without a stick or other tools, just relying on memory, hearing, and touch, but at the end of the days, that's still memory, hearing, and touch, not sight. So please, can we stop pretending that you can actually see something without actually seeing it?

But you know, I'm actually going to try to do what I said before I would do before I got dragged in again by an argument that made no sense at all: I'm just going to leave this now very pointless and even senseless discussion. If it has already come down to arguments where you are going to try to redefine the meaning of "to see" something, then I'm done wasting time with this. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 17:05, September 16, 2014 (UTC)