Forum - View topicChaos Dragon: SekiryuSen'eki (TV).
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
#Yggdrasil
Posts: 9 |
|
|||
You are too much influenced by our modern idea of "wealth" and by the modern mass production of objects. In this kind of setting usually all the objects are handmade, and their value is high even if they are not "fancy". |
||||
|
||||
DuskyPredator
 Posts: 15462 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
|||
|
Well we can only make guesses, but there are reasonable explanations. Maybe their currency is largely debt based, wealth could be more than a physical object but the name. If the fortune was heavily invested in the family business the loss of clients and failed attempts to sustain it could hit hard. We don't even know if he was the sole reason, many servants may have been too afraid to stay so help was expensive and only those who could not turn it down stayed for a length. The story was by his maid who was also a child, what would she know about it might have all fallen?
|
||||
|
||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||
An ability that has not been explained in minutiae is not a plot hole and barely counts as inconsistency, when the important thing is that the parents don't know how to deal with it. |
||||
|
||||
killjoy_the
 Posts: 2459 |
|
|||
|
Now that the anime has already gone through pretty much all of this, maybe this will help: http://imgur.com/a/Lgo3w . If you care about the character it might be an interesting read. There might be some spoilers for episodes to come, I'm not sure, part of it is Nasu speculating.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Harleyquin
Posts: 2841 |
|
|||
Someone actually bothered to translate the game transcripts from Japanese?! Guess enough people do watch the series for someone to go through that exercise and get noticed. The curse is limited to tools and weapons, so the definition of what a "tool" is supposed to be should answer the charge of "inconsistency" amongst those viewers with a masochistic streak for watching supposedly terrible and unwatchable shows. I gave a definition for tool earlier on and gave a few examples of what could and what couldn't break under the curse. Since no one's actually bothered to give counter-examples, perhaps the link provided in the last post should serve for now to answer the queries. |
||||
|
||||
|
Harleyquin
Posts: 2841 |
|
|||
1. Silver Spoon engraved with baby's name breaks in front of everyone when mother tries to feed baby. Now baby tries to touch mother's necklace, is it that unreasonable for everyone in the room to expect the worst? 2. The father jumped to conclusions, but the mother probably ended up the same way after seeing multiple items break in front of her eyes. Again not unreasonable for people to fear phenomena they don't understand, none of the people in the setting have the transcript which dictates the properties of the curse. 3. What's stopping the servants from spreading the word about the boy? What evidence do YOU have to prove that servants going to the market wouldn't talk about the unusually large quantity of household utensils that had to be bought each time? Bad news always travels fast, even more so when accompanied by vicious rumours. 4. Someone else has already given an example of the potential daily replacement of items to feed the child with, even if all of the metal utensils were replaced with wooden ones those would not be free to purchase. Short of starving the boy to death, even reducing the meals to something on a parity with the servants would still entail considerable expenditure when everything adds up. 5. Those "big names" you talk about weren't even involved with the series writing at all, they just invented the characters the series features (キャラクター原案, not シリーズ構成 nor ストーリーマスター). Not that you care since all you're interested in is venting your spleen at a show which you had inflated expectations for.[/b] |
||||
|
||||
CrowLia
 Posts: 5504 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
|
Dude, chill out, seriously, you can't get up in arms just because someone doesn't like a show you like. Everyone is already aware that the "big names" role in the show was creating and "playing" the characters, doesn't change the fact that the show was very hyped because of these guys' involvement in it and that it's turned out to be an entertaining disaster at best and a mediocre disappointment at worst. (admitted, Narita's character is the most interesting of the bunch
I have in no moment disagreed with the definition of "tool" you provided. That is exactly the point. The curse is supposedly limited to "tools"-objects that are used to fulfill a certain purpose-, but for some reason, neither Sweallow, everyone in his surroundings just assumes the kid will destroy everything he touches, even with visible proof that it isn't the case (the bed and clothes don't get destroyed, and I imagine someone had to hold him when his mother gave birth to him, but they weren't destroyed either). Why do the adults immediately jump to the conclusion that everything he touches will dissintegrate after seeing just one spoon get destroyed when they're also clearly seeing the child touch other things that don't get destroyed? Moreover, the character sheet says the curse has actually run in the family for generations, Swallow got the most extreme degree of the curse, but it's something the family knew about, so their "fear of the unknown" has actually no reason to be. It doesn't explain how the curse had affected the family previously, but if it's been in their blood for that long, surely someone already knew that it was limited to "tools" and shouldn't affect people because humans are not tools. I read through the link with the character profile and it's just filled with even more inconsistencies. It says his curse has destroyed people, but then says he has had one-night relationships with women, so which is it?. In the series, it is implied that Sweallow never destroyed any human with his ability and the character sheet doesn't specify the circumstances under which these humans were destroyed or why they got destroyed considering your aforementioned definition of "tool". Nasu describes his physical appearance saying his arms should somehow reflect the negative aspect of his curse, such as having his arms more lightly armored or something. Would that imply that the armor got destroyed on that area? And why, if it's clothing and not a tool? I'd be down for his armor as a whole to count as a tool, but apparently it doesn't, so why would the fore-arms of the armor be affected by the curse? So, as I said, and my main gripe with this whole thing, it's not just that the curse isn't properly explained, it's that it bends very randomly to fulfill the author's convenience and artificially create a tragic background for the character. |
||||
|
||||
|
#Yggdrasil
Posts: 9 |
|
|||
|
Dude, some of the inconsitances that you find is because the anime sligthy changed the curse from the original idea of Nasu. He said, for example, that he destroyed also forniture in the past.
The author himself in those notes ask to the GM if the rules allow him to consciously "use" his armour as if it is a tool. |
||||
|
||||
|
CrowLia
Posts: 5504 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
|
Uhh... no, you're not reading. The inconsistencies I note -aside from whether or not Swallow has destroyed humans with his curse- have no relation to the changes made in the anime from Nasu's original notes.
Let's backtrack and ignore the notes -this is the anime, not the tabletop game and one should not have to read the source material to make sense out of the anime- Besides, the notes just add more confusion, so let's cast them aside. This is what we as the audience know about Sweallow's curse: -It allows him to use a tool to its maximum potential -The tool will then be destroyed -The tool will be destroyed even if he doesn't touch it with his hands. -The curse does not affect things like the ground he walks, the clothes he wears, the furniture he uses (his bed as a child, the table and chairs at Ka Grava's house), means of transportation (the elephant), to name a few. -So far, no human has been destroyed by his curse, even though he's shown to have physical contact with some. Even slaves or maids don't seem to be considered "tools". In the scene where the parents reject Sweallow for his curse, the characters are aware of the following information: -The spoon broke when the child touched it -The bed he's lying on is not broken -Neither are the bedsheets -Since there is a family portrait, it is safe to assume the mother held the child for a prolonged time to have the portrait painted and she clearly wasn't destroyed. -Someone must have held the child when he was born -be it a midwife and/or either of the parents-, none of which disintegrated. So the father just jumps to the conclusion that the child will destroy everything he touches after seeing him break one spoon, whereas his not destroying everything else he'd touched accounts for nothing? Let's even assume the family doesn't know the curse is limited to tools, the leap is still way too drastic and far-fetched. I mean "breaks spoon -->> destroy everything he touches" what kind of insane leap of logic is that? Which goes back to my initial point, the whole flashback is artificially fabricated and forced melodrama to make the character more "tragic". |
||||
|
||||
|
Harleyquin
Posts: 2841 |
|
|||
Since you have decided to forego the source material in explaining the nature of the curse, the following points for you: 1. The father's comment is made when the boy is a new-born, so the family has at least had the chance to dress him via someone else (I will assume it's the mother because of the comment she made at the start). However, they have noticed the boy destroys items he touches and have had precious little opportunity to observe the phenomenon nor the courage to allow other humans more than fleeting touches of the baby for fear that the fate of the items extends to humans. Fear of the unknown (especially something dangerous) leads the father to jump to illogical conclusions in the eyes of the audience. 2. The painting example is a poor one, since rich families can afford to ask for portraits which do not rely on the subjects to sit for the painter. You have no proof to show that the portraits were done with the subjects seated and holding the baby for long periods, especially since the visuals portrayed the family in a very stylised manner. 3. Illogical as the father's fear of his son may be, it is not inconsistent for Siwallow himself to comment that his contact with other humans was limited because of the prejudice held against him and the material costs in raising him. It's also not unreasonable to agree with the writing when it claims his family's fortunes began to decline as a result of the curse's effects. 4. Since the adaptation is not being 100% faithful to the tabletop rules which inspired it nor are the rules public knowledge to all viewers of the series, your gripes and complaints about plot holes and inconsistency sound more like venting against a series you dislike and with little patience to wait until the review for this episode was posted. 5. I don't like this series, it provides light entertainment and listening practice for me which serves its purpose but I don't wait for each new instalment with baited breath. What I find perplexing is viewers who hate the series so much yet spend their time devoting themselves to nit-picking rather than dropping the show and using the time saved on other pursuits. |
||||
|
||||
|
CrowLia
Posts: 5504 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
Likewise, you have no proof that the baby has broken many more items before the spoon incident. His clothes are obviously not broken, so they wouldn't know about it just from dressing him. For all we know, it was his first time breaking something -as you pointed out, he's clearly a new-born, what other "tool" would a new-born hold?. Since the family doesn't know he's cursed before the curse itself takes action, there would be no reason for them to handle him with care until the first item is broken. That means, when the boy was born, people touched him and allowed him to touch them normally, they had no reason to "fear" him until they saw him actually breaking something, and yet the tiny experience of a spoon breaking causes everyone to freak out and assume he's going to destroy them even with immediately previous experience of that not being the case? That's absolutely dumb, and for the millionth time, artificial melodrama.
You've mentioned this a couple of times in this discussion but what is even your point? Why should we have to wait for the episode review to be posted to discuss the episode in the Series discussion thread? There's a reason the review thread and the series thread are separated. Literally why exactly is it "wrong" to criticise the episode before the review is up? |
||||
|
||||
|
Harleyquin
Posts: 2841 |
|
|||
For all your criticisms, do you really watch this episode without letting your preconceived distaste get in the way of seeing things as they are? Without going into the source material, you're already wrong about the new-born breaking things for the first time. 1. The mother's hands are visibly shaking when she's holding the spoon holding the milk, far more so than someone who's struggling to keep the milk from spilling. 2. The father's comment is the most obvious signal that the spoon is not the first thing the baby has broken, the mother's determination to raise the child by her own hand rather than relying on maids also shows familiarity with the baby's destructive tendencies. I'd mentioned this earlier and I'll mention this again, fear makes people jump to conclusions which from an outsider's point of view are illogical ( outsider(s) being viewers). 3. As I'd already mentioned but which you didn't even bother to read, the precise nature of the baby's curse has not been observed through an extended period of time. Viewers are well aware what the baby is capable of having watching Siwallow over the past few episodes as an adult, but would a family which in this adaptation did not have prior history of offspring with such destructive ability be so inclined to risk their material possessions and possibly the lives of their servants on something so unpredictable? 4. You can criticise the episode if you're so inclined to continue your masochistic habits of watching a show you patently can't stand, but I disagree that your criticisms are valid in the first place. |
||||
|
||||
|
CrowLia
Posts: 5504 Location: Mexico |
|
|||
|
Look, we've gone through this twenty thousand times already, but since you are incapable of acknowledging the existance of dissenting opinions, I'm honestly done arguing. Every single one of your points, I've covered them already, including the fact that I don't hate the series with a burning passion, as you seem to assume (who's the one not reading? I've said it three times already). Since the base of your argument is that my subjective opinion is wrong because I supposedly absolutely despise this series, there's literally no point in going round in circles about this anymore.
|
||||
|
||||
|
DuskyPredator
Posts: 15462 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
|||
Bottles, bowls, rattles, any toys, maybe something it grabbed with the purpose of making noise in mind. If the power changes upon intent, perhaps there could be inconsistencies from the mind of a baby that made the nature hard to pin down. |
||||
|
||||
egoist
 Posts: 7762 |
|
|||
|
As long as the psycho girl is fighting for the team I have nothing to complain about.
Glad I didn't see the baby king much. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group