View Single Post
Old 2009-07-20, 07:46   Link #2230
Keroko
Adeptus Animus
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
Ironically I just finished a similar debate over at the Strike Witches thread, except this time I was the one using visuals and Tk was using the novel. To say the two contradicted eachother on multiple occasions would be... an understatement. In the end we decided to discard the anime and stick with the novel, as the novel offered actual explanations on the situations while anime mostly did the things they did because it was either cool or easier to animate, and still made it subject to interpretation.

My point? Written sources and dialog > observations of animation. Ark, you see Nanoha blowing a hole in the Cradle while leaving Quattro unharmed and go on a tangent of mana particles and fermions. I see the same scene and say it was magic damage.

Now if we judge by the interpretations of the scene alone, neither of us is right or wrong. After all, that is why they are interpretations. So we need another source to confirm our interpretations.

Enter written sources and dialog.

And this is why I keep asking for canonical support of a written source. An interpretation of a scene followed by a theory of how it worked is not canonical support, it's a theory. I do not see why I should believe your theory to be the right one if you have no way to back it up.

Last edited by Keroko; 2009-07-20 at 08:27.
Keroko is offline