Forum - View topic

Interview: Gen Urobuchi

I'm getting the feeling that she hasn't at all raised or really changed her overall estimate of the film from when she first reviewed.

Even after all the discussion in the review thread, I don't recall there big changes in people's attitudes toward the film from what their first impression of it was.

When I asked Zac some weeks ago if there was ever going to be a podcast over the film, like I thought there was going to be, I think he said something along the lines of 'I think Hope said all that needed to be said about the film.' (Can't find that twitter exchange at the moment, sadly).

but that communicated to me an almost dismissive attitude towards opinions that were, in any way, meaningfully contrary to the original review piece, no matter how calm or articulate they may have been.

Why would it? The review didn't hinge on Urobuchi's attitude toward the ending.

I said "I think it's been talked to death at this point". You asked me that shortly after the review went up and the discussion was vigorous enough to where I thought a podcast about it was dead-horse-beating overkill. Had nothing to do with Hope's opinion.

I don't think I, or Juno016 for that matter, thought Hope's review hinged on that attitude. However, I don't believe that negates the possibility that a fan translation of what Urobuchi said in the film brochure-- possibly this one by feral-phoenix, which I believe was linked to in the forums and on twitter a number of times-- might have colored her perceptions while she was putting her review together

I hope he makes that Steampunk Anime he was saying he wanted to make.

I've always found his contempt for altruism and justice to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard from a writer. It just feels very childish somehow and like he's trying to appeal to teens in their rebellious phase or something that feel they have to answer to nothing. I also have never really bought that he feels like putting good and evil on the same ground, it's more like he just refuses to have conclusive resolutions to the conflicts of good and evil entities.

Besides, there's no such thing as true altruism anyways since everyone who wants to consciously do something, always does it in exchange for something else (and I don't mean money). There's always a selfish motivation for any supposed altruistic act; the exchange is of perceived spiritual value, or to satiate your own desires to "do good". And often, that pursuit of what they think of as doing good is what forms their own vision of justice, which would surely conflict with someone's else vision as well.

Wow, this is the first time I've seen someone else realize this as well. Brilliant. Do you give to charity to actually help out or do you do it to feel better about yourself and to gain a higher moral standing over your peers? Humans are hedonistic by nature and many try to fool themselves into believing otherwise.

Homura spent all those years (TV series) trying to save Madoka, because that is what Madoka asked her to and Madoka was her friend.

In the end, Madoka saved Homura, gave her something else to fight for, and gave her hope at the end for an eventual reunion. The TV series also showed, that indeed there was an afterlife. Rebellion also showed that near the end also.

We all already know why Homura changed so much out of character, because the writers needed an antagonist, and they picked Homura.

So they brute forced her into evil, pure and simple. The plot device was quite simple. Homura is trapped by the evil Kyubeys, and left to stew inside of her own mind, for god knows how long, as a quasi witch. Forever denied heaven and reunion with her friend.

The final crux of the matter for Rebellion is the final battle in Homura's mind. Homura would rather be trapped in her own mind 'forever' than let the Kyubeys win to trap Madoka. I find it almost unbelievable that Homura who would do that for Madoka, would almost immediately turn on her, taking all choice and freedom from Madoka.

In the end the writer's brute forced what they wanted, and the fatalists in us, must simple blame it all on the Kyubeys, because that is what the plot says.

I saw the movie and wrote most of the review waaaaay before reading that. It changed how I felt about what I saw, but it's notably not mentioned or referenced in the review at all, because it really didn't change what I had to say about the content from a critical standpoint.

In fact I think I read that interview like the day before the review went up and the only edits I was making at that point were structural/grammatical ones. Anyway, it obviously didn't make much difference to what I had to say about how well the movie worked, (for the most part: well) or how necessary it felt (entirely unnecessary, even the "twist" on Homura's character felt like it belonged in a different story.)

I gave the movie a fair shake and for the most part, I liked it. It's a good transparent cashgrab. I think that's a fair way to look at it, not biased by anything, because that's how I felt leaving the theater, and the only thing that changed after reading that interview was my knowledge of how that might have come about.

Actar wrote:

Wow, this is the first time I've seen someone else realize this as well. Brilliant. Do you give to charity to actually help out or do you do it to feel better about yourself and to gain a higher moral standing over your peers? Humans are hedonistic by nature and many try to fool themselves into believing otherwise.

Why is that an "or" situation?

When you give to charity you're helping out AND you can feel good about it. AND, not "or" and feeling good about it doesn't make it an inherently bad or selfish act.

Don't let me interrupt your edgy cynical take on us foolish humans, though.

Evil is another step entirely. Depending on any two people you ask, you'll get two different, three different, four different definitions of what evil is or could be, including the notion popular these days, possibly for the first time since the dawn of civilization, which is that evil doesn't exist. Which I think is a silly notion. There is just too much evidence to the contrary