Author Topic: Lavos's actual size  (Read 15196 times)

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2654
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2009, 01:41:15 am »
Then that means they actually travel in reverse. Who knows.


  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2011, 08:37:35 am »
You guys are rude! >:(

On a serious note, we have those city-domes to compare Lavos to. Lavos being smaller when you fight him can be attributed to conservation of detail.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 08:39:17 am by Lavos »

Schala Zeal

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2127
  • 7th Elemental Innate, and vtuber
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2011, 06:53:22 pm »
I know his actual size...... but there's children here so I dare not say any more.


  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2012, 01:21:00 am »
Well, Lavos' size is not depicted consistently in the game, so we can't really use that as a marker.  First you see and fight the whole thing from outside, then you go inside the core - which on the screen is depicted even larger than the shell.

Realistically, something with the power to raze an entire planet would have to be pretty freaking huge.  Consider this: what if a Lavos spawn was depicted to be about the same size as Lavos itself was depicted in original canon.  How large would the parent be?  Consider how large the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs on Earth was.  If Lavos was at least that large at the time of its impact, and it grew since then, how large would it be by 1999 A.D.?

Personally, I envision a colossus at least six miles high and about ten miles wide, and that's a conservative estimate.  Why so big?  Well, what would you rather see in a movie adaptation?  Something the size of your college dorm?  Or something the size of Mt. Everest?

Manly Man

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Don't be a pussy. She looks legit.
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2012, 03:18:29 am »
Honestly, judging by just how big those city-domes must be, I figure that Lavos is probably about half as wide as Manhattan. All things considered, that's abso-fucking-lutely HUGE. Lavos is big enough to eat Godzilla like a hotwing, were that the sort of food Lavos was into. As we all know, being the planet-sucker it is, such is not the case. I remember seeing somewhere that there was a debate about the size of the Black Omen, and it was, through a bit of estimation, that it was about as wide as Manhattan island, and the Lavos sprite that's used during the eruptions is about half that particular dimension.

Very, very rough estimates, but it makes the visualization all the grander, don't you think?


  • Guest
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2012, 04:37:47 pm »
Ok so I'm playing through CT today, and I noticed something peculiar.

First of all, For Lavos to be visible to the naked eye through a sunny sky in the middle of the day in 65,000,000 BC, one can assume he's pretty damned big.

When he falls, he hits the Tyrano Lair, whatever. However, if you notice, the sprite of him obliterating the Tyrano Lair is MUCH smaller than the sprite he uses when bursting from the ground.

So this is my question I guess, and it may sound stupid, but I believe it's a valid question. One can assume that Lavos grows when he's in the earth correct? Well if its sprite is that small when it falls, and it immediately falls into a pocket dimension, then how would it be able to grow? This assumes that its pocket dimension exists outside of the normal timeline. Wouldn't it be more feasible to assume that perhaps Schala actually forces Lavos into a PD after the Ocean Palace incident, rather than it creating one the instant it falls?

Actually, no; and here's why:

When Lavos falls to Earth in 65 billion BC or whatever; he falls into his pocket dimension as you call it. From here, you have to take on faith a few things: The fact that Lavos has done this many times before with other planets and the fact that he knows enough to do it well.

The reason he chose the pocket dimension was because it allows him to access all time periods at once; much like the End of Time PD that Gaspar fell into. Therefore, Lavos technically exists in all times and the same time and at the same time as existing in none of them. His growth is not based in time; but based in consumption. Therefore; for him to emerge from the ground in one time period specifically shows intent and thought on his part; and planning.

Lots of theories about why he popped up in Zeal and I think the most pertinent one is that Zeal powers Lavos at the same time as he powers Zeal. That is the deal between them. The Mammon Machine helps give Lavos power and Zeal helps Lavos which is why he tolerates her. He popped up; in both version of that past; at the time that people were gathered to put a stop to Zeal's bid for power. He came when she called and when he saw his targets; both times; disappear into their respective time rifts; he got angry and threw a temper tantrum.

as for 1999 AD; that's an easy one. When you travel to the future; 2300 A.D.; everything is ruins thanks to Lavos' work in 1999. Nobody has added anything new technologically since that time. Therefore, it stands to reason that Lavos erupted out of the ground in 1999 to attempt to destroy knowledge of himself from the minds of the people because he knew that the possibility of his defeat lay in that information. The information Crono and crew come across in their bid to get back to the present.

So, no; neither Schala or Janus succeeded in sending Lavos to a PD by summoning him. He chose to be in it. This is reinforced when you go to Tyranno Lair to fight Lavos shortly after he landed and found instead a gate to Zeal.


  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: Lavos's actual size
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2012, 10:34:05 am »