- Location
- South Africa
Again, she can see what happens after the arrier was destroyed before the barrier was even created in the first place, so this isn't an obstacle.
Mami's Maisonette: Madoka Magica Megathread
- Thread starter UbeOne
- Start date
- Megathread
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
This is a non provable point or a provable one with how your going on about it.
Your claiming that a source of exposition is incorrect.
Homura at the end of the anime is this.
If the story had achieve the perfect ending you think he believes was achieved then why is the character (Homura) at the same point as all the other stories before it?
LostDeviljho
Flame Dragon Princess
- Location
- The glorious Pacific Northwest
- Pronouns
- Any
No, whereupon you ignored all counters to continue asserting it was true. The final timeline relied upon a multitude of factors to happen as it did, and the fact that those factors never aligned in the exact same manner previously is not evidence against the original statement.
Pretty much every time she interacts with Homura.
By not knowing what she doesn't know. Thinking you know more than you do is incredibly easy.
And the author never claimed that she was omniscient, unless you can provide a direct quote saying "madokami is omniscient"
LostDeviljho
Flame Dragon Princess
- Location
- The glorious Pacific Northwest
- Pronouns
- Any
honestly, this has become too draining to continue. Like, I enjoy a good debate, but this isn't a good debate. It's not enjoyable, and it's not going anywhere.
- Location
- South Africa
Again, I'm not responding to Lost as he doesn't want to continue.
Sure. It's a non-provable point. It's also a completely non-applicable point and attempting to use it is an automatic failure of logic as I've repeatedly explained and you repeatedly ignore. As such, for both reasons you can't use it as evidence of anything, so you have to leave it alone and even if you didn't, the evidence would still support me.
Entirely different situation. Plenty happened in the movie afterwards and they were considering making a sequel anyway, so the fact that it cannot be completely true when you combine what has previously been established with what happens later on in the movie is enough to mean it's contradicted and thus not infallible.
He says he did. And the final scene of the anime shows Madoka whispering encouragement into Homura's ear after that, meaning that Homura isn't at that point anymore. And if you accept Rebellion (which I've told you not to, but you continue to insist on doing, so you've made your bed and have to sleep in it), the story isn't finished anyway, so that's an invalid complaint.
Sure. It's a non-provable point. It's also a completely non-applicable point and attempting to use it is an automatic failure of logic as I've repeatedly explained and you repeatedly ignore. As such, for both reasons you can't use it as evidence of anything, so you have to leave it alone and even if you didn't, the evidence would still support me.
at that point anymore.
Entirely different situation. Plenty happened in the movie afterwards and they were considering making a sequel anyway, so the fact that it cannot be completely true when you combine what has previously been established with what happens later on in the movie is enough to mean it's contradicted and thus not infallible.
He says he did. And the final scene of the anime shows Madoka whispering encouragement into Homura's ear after that, meaning that Homura isn't at that point anymore. And if you accept Rebellion (which I've told you not to, but you continue to insist on doing, so you've made your bed and have to sleep in it), the story isn't finished anyway, so that's an invalid complaint.
Omegahugger
Inattentive Idiot
No, your point doesn't stand, because Urobuchi did not go out of his way to portray Madoka as as powerful as you claim she is.
But this isn't something you can assume. Just because she hasn't done something before doesn't mean she couldn't do it before.
For example: I don't have a pet dog. No previous version of me have ever had a dog.
That doesn't mean that I need to get superpowers in order to get one, I just need to make the effort.
Now, you might say that since Kriemhild Gretchen took 10 days to destroy the planet, it means she's weaker than Madokami. But that isn't neccesarily true (to the extent that you think it is). Because Madokami herself has never shown any capacity for planet-busting, and in fact was overpowered by a dying fourteen-year-old.
Essentially, Madoka threw in all her points into Limited Reality-Warping whereas Kriemhild decided to become a physical powerhouse.
(and yes, we see that a Magical Girl's state has an effect on their witch-form, as shown by Oktavia having 2+ different forms)
See, the funny thing about that quote is that it's never fully quoted. The latter half of the Afterword never gets mentioned, probably because it isn't as relevant to Madoka as the first.
I'm gonna post the missing parts even though only 1 sentence is relevant, bolded for emphasis:
The perfect ending that Urobuchi strived for? Fate/Stay Night is that.Fate/zero Afterword 2nd Half said:
And it actually makes sense when you think about it:
"invert black and white, and act in complete contradiction to the rules of the universe." is almost the definition of what a Reality Marble like Unlimited Blade Works does, especially when you consider the origin of the term.
"Only a heavenly and chaste soul" to a certain degree describes Emiya Shirou, who too gave up his humanity and became an eternal defender outside of time like Madoka. They are even both defenders via destruction, although thankfully MAdoka chose that role willingly.
Shirou and Saber can only be united if he's eternally looking for her and she's eternally waiting. That's a pretty accurate description of what Homura/Madoka do at the end of the original. (and boy, isn't Rebellion an interesting twist on that tale)
Heck, he even describes Nasu and his own ideal self with "Warrior of Love", one of the classic descriptors of Magical Girls.
Despite this, you cannot in good faith call any of Fate/Stay Night's three endings "literally perfect".
Illyasviel dies in any of the three scenarios. (getting a few more years in the Fate one, but still dying way before she should)
In two out of three endings, Sakura stays with Zouken.
In all of them, EMIYA returns to his previous role of Counter Guardian, losing his memories of the events like all non-Arturia Servants do.
In general, all of the Master-Servant Pairs with the exemption of Shirou-Saber and Sakura-Rider are permanently torn apart.
So the perfect ending that Urobuchi wants is anything but.
Also of note, he never claims that Magical Girl stories allowed him to write a perfectly good ending, only a heartwarmng story. So even if we go with a classic definition of "perfect", you can't assume that Madoka fit that.
Madoka was with Homura. Unless you have "literally next to her all the time" as the definition of with her Madoka never truly left Homura until the ending.
Given enough loops its possible she would have, but the story ended before Homura's fears in that regard became realised.
I never said it was either? I said that the existance of the Wraith Arc proves that the story sold by the original's Sequel Hook was worth telling.
See, here you are assuming that the author's original intent is more important than their later intent. That they cannot make changes to a setting if they realise that they aren't satisfied with what they originally wrote.
Like, why is the original Madokami more important than the later one? Because Gilgamesh said so?
You do recall that less than a minute after Sayaka swore to remember, she forgot, right? If the next movie takes place immediately after Rebellion, Homura's main opponent will be Madoka, not Sayaka.
Do we actually have confirmation that the next movie will take place after Rebellion, or is this an assumption like how we all assumed Rebellion would show us the Wraith-verse?
- Location
- South Africa
Yes, he did. First, he writes her claiming omniscience. If he didn't want to portray her as omniscient, he would have never written her making that claim. Then, she elaborates, making it a really extensive claim and therefore an even more extreme version of the last point. Then, he has her describe Homura's past, giving credence to her claim. Then, he shows flashbacks of Homura's life as Madoka speaks, symbolising that Madoka knows what she's talking about, giving yet more credence to her claim, which he would have never done if he was not intending to portray Madokami as omniscient. Then, he shows her appearing in multiple places at the same time and time travelling, to give yet more credence to her claim. He even goes out of his way to show that this ability is not linked to her unwitching, showed her in the future, showed her standing in an entirely different galaxy and showed her moving tens of thousands of light years per second, effortlessly, therefore she has no discernible limits to this ability and provided us with no limit to it. Meaning that she can go anywhere in time and space, any time she wants t, meaning that if she doesn't know something, she can effortlessly and retroactively find out. Then he even showed her in multiple locations, floating, just before her speech to Homura which has the sole purpose of telling us to believe Madoka's claims about her power. Then there's the scene where Kyuubey makes a mistake when discussing Madoka's power, Madoka appears, corrects him, and demonstrates that she is right, not Kyuubey, which is a message from the author telling us to trust Madoka's claims about her power. And claims that "we didn't see her as litterally omnipresent and omniscient" are ridiculous as it's impossible for us to see that and is therefore not something Urobuchi could have included, so he included all the evidence it is physically possible to include that my interpretation is correct.
What it means is that either you didn't want a dog, or something prevented you from getting a dog. We know what Gretchen wants, so something is preventing her, it means she's not powerful enough to overcome it, while Madokami was.
Demonstrably wrong.
Firstly, we see the results of a Gretchen with Madokami witch. It dwarfed the entire lunar orbit, fitting the entire planet in it's mouth, meaning it could destroy the planet in one chomp (not ten days). We know that the previous timeline had Homura, on Earth, outside Gretchen's barrier (which is much bigger than her mouth).
Secondly, Madokami is shown to have the physical power to planetbust. Madoka destroys her witch self (who again, dwarfs the entire lunar orbit) with a single arrow, proving she can bust planet-sized objects easily. And her arrows aren't "anti-witch" as she requires several in earlier timelines. She does not accomplish this via reality warping, nor does she use her standard absorbtion of full Soul Gems method. She accomplishes it with sheer, brute strength. The writers could have written the scene as a parallel to Wally's, but they didn't. They were showing off Madokami's physical might.
Being overpowered by a dying fourteen year old means squat when said dying fourteen year old is a demonstrated Universal reality warper at least. That argument is like the ridiculous claim that "Ajimu from Medaka Box cannot actually be as powerful as she was previously shown to be as Iihiko could beat her". No. That just makes Iihiko more powerful even than that.
So she's no longer suffering. Not seeing the problem.
Sucky, but she doesn't in the third.
Nothing wrong with any of that.
Well, I'm clearly siding more with him here. Note that EMIYA is not tricked intlo being ripped out of his role.
Which, from the previous quote, tells us that his definition of "heartwarming" involves being perfect.
Well, I pretty much am using that definition, but either way, we see her between leaving Madoka and the scene in the desert, so my point stands.
I'm saying that the original did not have a sequel hook. Rebellion had a prequel hook. That's the reason Wraith Arc exists.
Because it's an utter desecration of the original work, a destruction of continuity and an assault on suspension of disbelief.
But that isn't relevant to my point. My point is, that if there was any point, at any time, even for a single second, when they designed madokami, where they imagined her as too powerful for the "point-allocation hypothesis" to work, it means that they did not design her to fit the point-allocation hypothesis and the hypothesis is thus impossible.
There is zero evidence of this. Homura told Sayaka that she'd better pretend not to know to avoid alienating Madoka and then she took Homura's advice.
Which agrees with the fact that the end of Rebellion was full of sequel hooks. I only mentioned one. We see Madoka struggling to reassert her memories, Homura confirming that she won't be able to stop Madoka from remembering forever and that they will one day become enemies. Entirely in support of my claim.
Not confirmation, but even if it isn't, my point that the story was known to be unfinished still stands.
Last edited:
LostDeviljho
Flame Dragon Princess
- Location
- The glorious Pacific Northwest
- Pronouns
- Any
you messed up your quote tags there.
- Location
- South Africa
So I did. Thanks. Fixed.
LostDeviljho
Flame Dragon Princess
- Location
- The glorious Pacific Northwest
- Pronouns
- Any
...Trying to stay out of this but still feeling the need to say something is fucking awful.
Screw it, posting then unwatching the thread so I stop being filled with dread whenever I see it pop up on my unread threads page.
And no, that is not the timeline immediately before the final one, because we never see that timeline at all and thus the gretchen we see cannot be from that timeline.
I disagree on the master servant pairs being broken up not being a bad thing as well, but that's subjective.
Screw it, posting then unwatching the thread so I stop being filled with dread whenever I see it pop up on my unread threads page.
You know it's entirely possible for madoka to just not witch out, right?
Comparing Timeline Four to the Final Timeline is so flawed as to be completely invalid for the purposes you're trying to use it for.
And no, that is not the timeline immediately before the final one, because we never see that timeline at all and thus the gretchen we see cannot be from that timeline.
She didn't make an anti-witch wish in earlier timelines, so this argument is invalid.
Death is not a good thing.
One out of three isn't very good, and certainly isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, there is. Or did you miss the part where EMIYA was so utterly and fundamentally miserable in his role that he tried to paradox himself out of existence?
I disagree on the master servant pairs being broken up not being a bad thing as well, but that's subjective.
This is a subjective opinion, and one I personally believe is wrong.
They never did, though, thus the hypothesis is not impossible. That's kinda the whole point.
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
Ok I personally am going to stop after this post for this argument because both you sereg and I am not going to change our minds however, Madoka is anti witch, her wish makes her anti-witch, any action token by her own hand has the power to destroy any witch, that was her wish and trying to say otherwise is foolish to a idiot degree, Madoka most likely could simply have just walked up to her own witch and slap it and would insta-kill the thing, Because she has the power to kill all witches with her own hands and if you want to say her arrows did not become anti witch then Madoka's existence became anti witch. her killing a planet size witch does not make her a planet buster, her killing a galaxy size witch does not make her a galaxy buster, she can not fail to kill a witch and cannot fail to not attempt to do so. That was her wish in the most central way.
PMMM Themes
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
Let there be fire.
And now we have our newest topic for the Maisonette.
AuraTwilight
The Sorcerer of Smiles
- Location
- The Silver City
Oh hey. Didn't even know this thread existed.
CompassJimbo
Where’s Your North?
- Location
- The former Rubber Capital of the World
A place for us to bounce headcanons and stuff.
Omegahugger
Inattentive Idiot
Once it's been pointed out to you, the similarities between Ultimate Madoka and a Boddhisattva really are obvious.
The Morality of Sayaka and Kyouko
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
You know, the discussion about the morality of Kyouko farming grief seeds off of familiars, who killed humans to reach that point, sorta reminds me of the trolley problem (at least, assuming that most of how that worked was simply her not interfering as the familiar went about, rather than her snagging people and dropping them in front of familiars).
And there's only one answer I have for the trolley problem:
(More seriously, my answer is "I'm a fat man, so I'll jump on the track myself. Deal with it you tenured prune.")
hmm Sayaka believes herself to be the most perfect person around after Mami's death and refused to change her mind on anyone other then Madoka who she came to be mean to.
Also her last words talks about how she believes that all the good she'd done will bring about a = amount of bad, from her point of view she came to think that the good she has done is pointless and that she has already started to do bad, what makes you think she didn't become a lifeless doll waiting to cease after killing thous 2 men?
- Location
- South Africa
We were asked to move this here, so...
It does mean you didn't just kill everyone n the room though, so you weren't a deranged hurricane of bestial instinct and no mental faculties.
And I inherently disagree with this. I believe leaving a monster alive makes you guilty of all their future crimes.
For example, in my city, a trial has been going on for one of our vigilante brothers. At every trial, his entire community come and protests outside the court in support of him. A drug-lord was bribing the police so they refused to arrest him despite his drug trafficking ruining the community.He also raped and murdered a young girl and a young boy on two separate occasions and the police still turned a blind eye as they were in his pocket. So, to protect the children, this hero killed the drug-lord to praise by the community and the police arrested him.
I too support him.
It does mean you didn't just kill everyone n the room though, so you weren't a deranged hurricane of bestial instinct and no mental faculties.
And I inherently disagree with this. I believe leaving a monster alive makes you guilty of all their future crimes.
For example, in my city, a trial has been going on for one of our vigilante brothers. At every trial, his entire community come and protests outside the court in support of him. A drug-lord was bribing the police so they refused to arrest him despite his drug trafficking ruining the community.He also raped and murdered a young girl and a young boy on two separate occasions and the police still turned a blind eye as they were in his pocket. So, to protect the children, this hero killed the drug-lord to praise by the community and the police arrested him.
I too support him.
- Location
- South Africa
No one gave Sayaka any evidence to change her mind. Changing your mind without evidence isn't clever.
Well, she did. That was just prior to witchout. But I don't see the relevance?
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
On one hand I agree on the other I disagree that Sayaka had enough of a reason to justify killing thous 2 men.
She already had all the information needed to at least come to the conclusion that she does lack knowledge and should most likely seek out more, she instead stuck to her first view of every person she came across, the only reason she did not try to kill Kyoko is because she knew she would fail, She had fallen to Kyoko's level of evil when she killed thous 2 people on the train. To have gain enough information to justify her murders? She should have at least check in on the women and get a read on their thoughts on the matter, for all you know Sayaka killed the only people who provided for them and they will now die of lack or be forced to rent themselves out to an even greater evil.
- Location
- South Africa
As I said, I don't think it was the best way to handle the situation. Merely an acceptable one given the circumstances. I agree that that would have been better. That said, I'm not an "ends justify the means" guy. What happened later on might be sad, but it doesn't change the good of the interim. I do not believe that every person who kills another is equally evil. As I said, I don't even consider those murders to be an evil act. Sayaka fights to make the world a better place. Kyouko causes suffering for her own gain. The two are as different as it is possible to be as far as I'm concerned.
(Also, if I was in Sayaka's position, I would also have tried to kill her. I agree with Sayaka's assessment of Kyouko)
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
ah I am a every situation is different/end justify the means sort of fellow.
This is sort of an the flip side of the coin of things will get worse before they get better, sort term loss for long term gain is for the most part far better then short term gain for long term loss.
So was the thought process of almost every terrorist group if everyone believes that they are aiming to make the world a better place and thus doesn't even try to listen to thous around you well one would probably cause more problems then fixed.
This is due to the fact that she believed that helping others will lead to even greater evils taking place (aka her wish for her family ended in them committing suicide and kyoko being told by her father who was given brain washing powers that she is a witch/servent of the devil.) She chooses to give up on being good because it leads to greater wrongs taking place. until the events with Sayaka happens.
You do know that Kyoko was essentially as much of a hero as Mami before her families suicide? Sayaka walked down the path the that is just as dark/evil as the one Kyoko has took.
UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
...I'd think of Kyouko as abrasive, selfish and cynical. She's a survivalist, and one who believes in using magic solely for herself. I'd think that for her, as long as she gets to live, not much else matters. The more altruistic, heroic side of her is buried under all that cynicism because of what happened to her.
I'd think that not killing a familiar, thus letting it go, is less severe (though still not good) than say, luring a familiar to a crowd, but that would be like comparing an act of omission or neglect to an act of commission or malice.
Sayaka tries to uphold her just beliefs, which is admirable, but she also breaks down when she realizes that she falls short of them, which is understandable. Also, there is being steadfast in one's beliefs, then there is being close-minded. There is seeing everything in black and white, then there is seeing the gray areas in between, but striving to do good and be good nonetheless.
But then again, one does have lines that one simply does not cross, and would not want to see other people crossing said lines.
...Or at least these are some of my thoughts on things.
I'd think that not killing a familiar, thus letting it go, is less severe (though still not good) than say, luring a familiar to a crowd, but that would be like comparing an act of omission or neglect to an act of commission or malice.
Sayaka tries to uphold her just beliefs, which is admirable, but she also breaks down when she realizes that she falls short of them, which is understandable. Also, there is being steadfast in one's beliefs, then there is being close-minded. There is seeing everything in black and white, then there is seeing the gray areas in between, but striving to do good and be good nonetheless.
But then again, one does have lines that one simply does not cross, and would not want to see other people crossing said lines.
...Or at least these are some of my thoughts on things.
Last edited:
LostDeviljho
Flame Dragon Princess
- Location
- The glorious Pacific Northwest
- Pronouns
- Any
And neither of the two men on that train were monsters.
- Location
- Borneo
Future crimes?
What future crimes? I'm saying rot, as in get old, mistreated, and f%&-ed up in prison, alone, in a deep, dark cell with thick concrete walls were no one can talk to you, zero access to the outside world, where the food and water is basically f*&-ing crap, and rot.
And yes, I know it's not actually that way, but dang it all, a guy can hope it will, can't he?
Basically, I want these people gone, but I don't think murder is the right choice if one can help it, self-defence being one of those sadly necessary exceptions.
Mind you, harmful injury is not something that I'm...opposed to. Just when it leads to death.
And as for that case you mentioned, yes, I don't blame the guy for what he did, that drug lord sounds like a complete monster, but....sigh, let's just say my belief in this is like yours in that it's very rock solid and I won't budge on it, and let's leave it at thet yeah?