Forum

Maidenoftheredhand wrote:

Arakawa interviewing WWII veterans does not negate that her main inspiration for the Ishvalan's were the Ainu which she stated in interviews. She basically took most of her inspiration from her own experiences and people she met and talked with.

You phrased this as though that was the only one out of those things that she took any inspiration from, and people who compared it to other things were just ignorant. So you can't backtrack and say "well that was her MAIN inspiration." That's not how you put it. You suggested people shouldn't make those comparisons at all and specifically said they were only doing so because those were "ones they were familiar with."

It's all kind of a silly discussion anyway because when people talk about it being "similar" to some of these conflicts, that doesn't necessarily mean they think it is literally inspired by those. There are similarities to how oppressed racial groups are treated around the world and throughout history. Just because Arakawa was inspired by a particular conflict didn't mean she said "this is the only one you can compare it to and if you draw parallels with any other one you're wrong!" Which is what you were implying and how I've seen most of the fandom use that tidbit that she was inspired by the Ainu. On the contrary, FMA has some pretty universal appeal in its messages about racism and discrimination, and that seems like what Arakawa intended with it (much as I don't think authorial intent should be the limit of these discussions when we're talking about the political implications of fiction).

SailorTralfamadore wrote:

Maidenoftheredhand wrote:

Arakawa interviewing WWII veterans does not negate that her main inspiration for the Ishvalan's were the Ainu which she stated in interviews. She basically took most of her inspiration from her own experiences and people she met and talked with.

You phrased this as though that was the only one out of those things that she took any inspiration from, and people who compared it to other things were just ignorant. So you can't backtrack and say "well that was her MAIN inspiration." That's not how you put it. You suggested people shouldn't make those comparisons at all and specifically said they were only doing so because those were "ones they were familiar with."

Excuse me I am not back tracking anything. Arakawa interviewing soldiers has nothing to do with her inspiration for the Ishvalan's people.

I was talking about one aspect of the story NOT the story as a whole. It's a fantasy story not a direct reflection to real life.

And I also don't think it is wrong to say people mistakenly look at what they are personally familiar with and form connections but that doesn't mean the author was making those same connections. The first anime maybe was trying to say something about Iraq war but Arakawa wasn't. Or if she was making a statement about the middle east conflict she certainly didn't say so. People can find anything relatable to their personal experiences (and again no where did I say that was wrong) but I still think it is important to understand the context of someone's work. The fact that Arakawa drew the story from her own experiences and background is what makes the story so enriching.

Finally I am not sure why you are so upset at a general statement I made. I certainly wasn't attacking anyone but you feel the need to defend unnamed people. You also keep misinterpreting my post and finding things I did not even say.

If there's one thing I have to give the original Fullmetal Alchemist credit for, it's being a better starter series. Only 51 episodes compared to Brotherhood's 65, keeping the dark/graphic violence to a minimum for younger viewers, and if said person decides they want to read the manga later, they'll almost have two different series.

Also the original's OPs were a bit more ear-wormy to me for some reason. In fifth grade I once accidentally caught myself lightly singing the first OP in my butchered Japanese in the middle of class. The kids next to me noticed. Tad bit embarrassing, but it proves the power of an ear worm. Laughing

Fedora-san wrote:

Maidenoftheredhand wrote:

Also Roy killing Winry's parents does not make him more complex or dark. Should we ignore all the Ishvalan's he killed. He was also following orders.

That does raise some question why killing hundreds of Ishvalans is fine but killing Winry's parents is what drives him to near suicide. At least Brotherhood Mustang hated his entire part in the war. Also, killing Winry's parents being his motivation to become Fuhrer kind of loses it's impact when he gives up on being Fuhrer towards the end of the series.
.

I think it actually does make sense. As bad as killing all those people was, it was still possible for him to distinguish them as the enemy, even if it came down to a racial distinction. He might not have liked it, but it could still fall under following orders (even if they were terrible orders). Mustang was already having trouble with the orders since obviously there were a lot of civilians dying, but when he was finally ordered to kill citizens of his own country who were clearly non-combatants that were even helping their own soldiers, it was finally too much. I don't think it was so much that the Rockbells were the only thing that changed his outlook, it was more that they tipped him over the edge.

daichi383 wrote:

Regarding Scar and Miles and the race thing you guys brought up. I get what you are trying to say but i think context was really key in that case. Miles himself wouldn't really be as attached to Ishval as Scar since he didn't grow up there and really, righteous anger is only justified to a certain extent. Its not a case of being a "bad" or "good" minority but Miles just not feeling sympathetic to Scars cause because he's a murdering psychopath. Honestly talk of being a good or bad minority irks me some speaking as one myself because really you will find people with different beliefs who are of the same race and just because one is on the side of the supposed enemy doesn't mean his views are inherently problematic. I'm assuming you're obviously already aware of this lol. Just different worldviews in this case and a good example of ones environment informing their beliefs. Scars development after that didn't really seem out of place to me. It didn't look like he'd encountered a fellow ishvalan with that worldview so taking in that opinion and evaluating what he'd been doing; i could see him deciding killing wasn't really productive in the long run. Thats my take anyway.

Miles only survived the purges because he had enough Amestrian ancestry not to qualify for them. Most other Ishvalans didn't have the option of "joining the enemy". And those already in the military at the time were exterminated with the rest.

It's all well and good for Miles to say that Ishvalans should be good and cooperate with the government, when he's not the one who watched his entire family be murdered in front of his eyes. His family was safe in Amestris, after all, by virtue of being just Amestrian enough to escape the genocide.

The point here is that Miles had privileges and opportunities that the other Ishbalans didn't have, so where does he get off lecturing them about morality? And why would Scar change his tune so quickly? The whole thing made me feel a little sick to my stomach, to be honest.

And Scar isn't a "murdering psychopath". The fact that you would classify him as one honestly disturbs me.

About Roy Mustang getting his eyesight back, it wasn't a plot-hole. That's not to say it was good storytelling. The philosophers stones in Brotherhood are capable of taking things back from the gate, Kimblee points this out to Al, and Ling offers Ed a stone to get back his brother at the end. The souls that get consumed in the process are considered an equivalent exchange.

The brothers Elric realize the possibility, but refuse it at several points in the story. The answer that kind of comes out in this is "You can, but you shouldn't."

Brotherhood depicts that a society based around the mass creation of philosophers stones is actually completely sustainable. The math checks out without much issue. Compared to 2003, where Dante is just stretching her time as far as she can, realizing that she loses a piece of herself with every switch. She can't keep it up forever, but refuses to believe it. If she existed in Brotherhood's continuity, she would have absolutely no trouble living forever.

This is one of those big thematic disconnects that didn't get touched on the podcast (there are just so many of them). While 2003 is darker and more pessimistic about people, it is also committed to alchemy's inability to solve Dante and the Elric's problems. In the end, Edward realizes that only a life can equal a life, and passes through the gate to bring Alphonse out of it. The philosopher's stone is capable of miracles, but not in the way any character wants it to be.

Dante's plan to live forever by burying countries and taking advantage of tragedy is flawed from the start, while the only reason Father's doesn't work is because people manage to sabotage it. The philosopher's stone is a moral dilemma, but entirely useful to those who can stomach the implications. It's a pretty ugly thought, to imagine the world working like that, even if teamwork saves the day.

Now, I say all of this ... but Brotherhood is my preferred adaptation. It might be uninspired, and it's ideas bankrupt, but it's the powerful action-adventure show that the 2003 version left me wanting. My tastes have changed somewhat, and I appreciate the original more in retrospect, but re-watching Brotherhood hasn't diminished anything for me. Even when I appreciate all of it's flaws, like the broken worldview I mention above, I'm still strangely fond of it.

Anyway, I'm glad you guys had this podcast.

I think that Ed's proposal to Winry could've gone better the way he said it.

SailorTralfamadore wrote:

That said, I just remembered that when Ed is in the Gate the first time (when he tried to resurrect his mother) he saw a bunch of images of historical events from our world. He has a flashback where he discusses everything the Gate showed him and you actually see a bunch of the images, and they're real photographs of stuff like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nazi rallies. I'd say that's pretty direct.

the world that the 2003 FMA ran parallel to at the time was set in the 1920s so how is it that the Gate flashed a myriad of events that hadn't yet happened in front of Edward?

amarielah wrote:

The point here is that Miles had privileges and opportunities that the other Ishbalans didn't have, so where does he get off lecturing them about morality? And why would Scar change his tune so quickly? The whole thing made me feel a little sick to my stomach, to be honest.

And Scar isn't a "murdering psychopath". The fact that you would classify him as one honestly disturbs me.

Scar remembered the words his mentor told him about how someone must end this Cycle of Hatred. He also remembered the words that his brother told them about how if Negative feelings build up than the flow of the world will become negative. That was on top of Winry showing up to bandage Scar's arm.

You make it seem like Miles showed up, told Scar about his views, and all of a sudden Scar changed his mind.

The entire point Arakawa was making was that killing people will only cause more bloodshed.

That was my main problem I had with Mizushima's other big series Gundam 00 were Celestial Being start a war, their actions not only directly kill a lot of people but lead to a despot being put in charge of the Earth and by the end of the series they get off scott free and we are supposed to think they were the good guys.

amarielah wrote:

Miles only survived the purges because he had enough Amestrian ancestry not to qualify for them. Most other Ishvalans didn't have the option of "joining the enemy". And those already in the military at the time were exterminated with the rest.

It's all well and good for Miles to say that Ishvalans should be good and cooperate with the government, when he's not the one who watched his entire family be murdered in front of his eyes. His family was safe in Amestris, after all, by virtue of being just Amestrian enough to escape the genocide.

The point here is that Miles had privileges and opportunities that the other Ishbalans didn't have, so where does he get off lecturing them about morality? And why would Scar change his tune so quickly? The whole thing made me feel a little sick to my stomach, to be honest.

And Scar isn't a "murdering psychopath". The fact that you would classify him as one honestly disturbs me.

I'm sorry my my comment "disturbed" you. I mean, no matter how justified Scar might be in his anger i seriously think as soon as you stoop to taking peoples lives you lose me. Like i said though, Miles offered Scar a different perspective that he hadn't thought of before and that caused Scar to think about things. Just because Miles had "privileges" doesn't mean he can't offer insight from his perspective. I don't see why that is so troublesome. Unless you seriously think that "privileged" people have no place offering their opinions to people less advantaged. Being "privileged" which is something Miles has no control over doesn't negate the fact that he has some life experience and can offer opinions too.

Don't get me wrong, i did find Scar sympathetic but not so much that i would overlook what he was clearly doing which was going around killing folks. Even if he was killing State alchemists involved in the massacre, that wouldn't have solved anything in the context of the show. What he did afterwards was believable progression to me and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

lemurs wrote:

I just did a concurrent rewatch of both FMA series not too long ago and FMA:B really is a lot better. The 2003 series has pretty big chunks of filler, plot threads that don't resolve well and a bit of a nasty streak. FMA:B stays a lot more consistent throughout.

Yeah, Brotherhood was the better one, but the 2003 one was also really great, even despite the fillers and unresolved plot threads.

Thank you, Hope, for sticking up for Wrath in FMA 2003, who was frequently slammed by fandom as a whiny little bitch, but who I thought was a really sympathetic character.

He also symbolizes one of the key ways in which FMA 2003 is more character driven than Brotherhood. In the new material developed for 2003, most of the decisions made bring the action and the character relationships back to Ed and Al:

Envy is their half brother (the failed human transmutation of Hoenheim & Dante's drowned son)
Sloth is their own failed transmutation of their mother
Wrath, the failed transmutation of their teacher's stillborn son, has Ed's freaking arm and leg, and wants the rest of him
Dante is their father's ex-lover

In bad writing, this would be absurd coincidence, but in most of these cases, the relationships are a plausibly natural consequence of Dante & Hoenheim's actions, which means Ed & Al are fated to clean up for their father's sins.

In Brotherhood, I think it's a consequence of the original manga that Arakawa wanted to expand the scope of the story and have a nice long run in Shonen Gangan, so she put in more and more characters, more and more locations, and ended up pushing the action away from Ed & Al. Like Zac said, sometimes it feels like they've become minor characters in their own story. Whereas in 2003, all the new stuff just brings everything back to Ed & Al… perhaps capped off by the twist that the Philosopher's Stone, the thing they've been looking for all this time, is not just some external MacGuffin but instead ends up becoming Al's body itself.

The 2003 FMA series make it clear from the first episode it's a parallel universe look at the Elric brothers birth dates. And their teacher shows Edward a letter mentions the dating system is no longer used. And in their first mission as state alchemists Father Conswello clothing denote Christian clerical garb. The god he is promoting to his followers is none other than Helios. In FMB he is promoting Ilium a Egyptian goddess and in the book The Philosopher's Stone by Joseph P. Farrell a identifies Hohenheim the Elrics father as aka Paracelsus. So the parallel universe is revealed from the beginning of the series and I like both series each stand on it's own but derives from the same story material. Cool

invalidname wrote:

Thank you, Hope, for sticking up for Wrath in FMA 2003, who was frequently slammed by fandom as a whiny little bitch, but who I thought was a really sympathetic character.

He also symbolizes one of the key ways in which FMA 2003 is more character driven than Brotherhood. In the new material developed for 2003, most of the decisions made bring the action and the character relationships back to Ed and Al:

Envy is their half brother (the failed human transmutation of Hoenheim & Dante's drowned son)
Sloth is their own failed transmutation of their mother
Wrath, the failed transmutation of their teacher's stillborn son, has Ed's freaking arm and leg, and wants the rest of him
Dante is their father's ex-lover

In bad writing, this would be absurd coincidence, but in most of these cases, the relationships are a plausibly natural consequence of Dante & Hoenheim's actions, which means Ed & Al are fated to clean up for their father's sins.

In Brotherhood, I think it's a consequence of the original manga that Arakawa wanted to expand the scope of the story and have a nice long run in Shonen Gangan, so she put in more and more characters, more and more locations, and ended up pushing the action away from Ed & Al. Like Zac said, sometimes it feels like they've become minor characters in their own story. Whereas in 2003, all the new stuff just brings everything back to Ed & Al… perhaps capped off by the twist that the Philosopher's Stone, the thing they've been looking for all this time, is not just some external MacGuffin but instead ends up becoming Al's body itself.

Which is the big problem I have with the 2003 series. Everything had to revolve around Ed. Events that happened to other characters were now changed so they happened to Ed. Instead of Winry delivering a baby it was now Ed delivering a baby. Hughes death is changed so that the person it now effects most is Ed instead of Mustang. They didn't bother to develop any of Mustang's men (including Riza) so they are now a bunch of moronic comic relief characters. Same thing with Alex Louis Armstrong whose entire character now revolves around being a narcissist who constantly talks about his family.

Like the manga the main villain seemingly has more to do with Hohenheim so as soon as Hohenheim appears in the story his almost immediately removed from the story and receives barely any character development. Its impossible to sympathize with Hohenheim when he appears for about twenty minutes total and his backstory has him murdering people and abandoning two different families.

Well, let's face it, apart from Hawkeye and Havoc, none of Mustang's other subordinates mattered in the least in the manga or Brotherhood, either. Maybe Falman for about two minutes. Breda and whatshisface, nerd guy, completely worthless characters. Even Hawkeye's friend who worked under Grumman had a bigger role. The lot of them were always mostly comic relief.

As far as importance, Edward barely even had anything to do with Father's defeat, though you could make the same argument of Dante. Sure, Ed was beating him up with his punches, but nearly anyone there could have done that, and Father would have wasted away regardless since he didn't have enough Stone to keep in "god"'s power. Everybody just standing there shouting at Ed for support could have just rushed what was left of Father and done it themselves. Heck, Ed didn't even really do much to chip away at Father's stone. He was just the guy who got to finish him off because of his close location to him. Hohenheim did all the real work.

With Dante, it's Alphonse who ruins her plans, and then her own idiocy and Gluttony's appetite that ultimately does her in. But at least the brothers were the only people there that could have stopped her. Literally any soldier in the crowd at the end of Brotherhood could have ran up and kicked Father in the junk and finished him. He was barely standing.

But, look, it's not like our main heroes have to be THE ONES who strike the last blow on the final villain for it to be a proper victory. Dante and Father both ultimately got very karmic deaths.

Forum - View topic
Fullmetal ANNCast: Brotherhood

This Week in Anime - Is OEL Manga Really Manga?

The Horizon Volumes 1-3 Manhwa Review

Black Butler Manga Goes on Hiatus Before Heading to Climax

River's Edge Manga Review

New Projects Bring New Opportunities for Kinema Citrus Anime Studio

Tokyo Revengers TV Anime Gets Sequel, Fairy Tale Mini Anime

The Café Terrace and Its Goddesses Season 1 Anime Series Review

Cyber Attack Delays Kadokawa's Releases, Accounting With Niconico Expected to Stay Offline for 1 Month or More

Baki Hanma vs. Kengan Ashura Anime Special Review

Forum - View topicFullmetal ANNCast: Brotherhood

Forum

Forum - View topic
Fullmetal ANNCast: Brotherhood