AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-08-28, 10:22   Link #1001
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
I just don't want to make any announcements before making sure I'm right. If I'm wrong, it would be rather embarrassing.
You know, that never stopped me from posting some highly questionable things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
-Can anyone confirm to me if the games the exact same amount of time?(Game Board wise, not as in how long it takes to finish the episode)
It is commonly believed that the endgame event always occurs at 24:00 on the 5th, but there is little hard evidence to say this is indeed the case -- the events very close to the endgame event seem to dissolve into magical scenes Battler can observe, and it's not clear at all when exactly this starts -- before the clock chime or after. It is fairly clearly demonstrated that alterations in events occurring on the early morning of the 4th even before anyone gets to the airport produce at least a subtly different progression. Characters variously refer to the 4th as being the start of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
-Can anyone clarify to me the forgeries/books thing? I just want to make sure I got that down correctly.
According to later episodes, two "message bottles" exist detailing the content of episodes, in both of them, no survivors are mentioned. It is generally presumed these are episodes 1 and 2, as at the moment this was described, episodes 1 and 2 had no survivors but episode 3 did (Eva) but nothing specific is said about it. Everything else is termed "forgeries" according to episode 4.

In later episodes, Hachijou claims to have written the forgeries signed "Itouikukuro Reigonamu", veracity of this claim is not really confirmed.

Someone else will need to field the ones relating to Word of God.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 10:58   Link #1002
ArcticHelm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
I think it's pretty hard to clarify the books/episodes. :< A lot hinges on whether or not they (the first two) were written before or after the event on Rokkenjima. If it's before, you could say that all the information about that two day period are really based on some story and hope that Beatrice had in regards to Rokkenjima and felt that whatever hope that was wouldn't be fulfilled on the game board. They perhaps felt that it could only come true if, as a witch, made everyone believe that it came true. Perhaps the story Battler will give in EP8 will show that something more than an illusion came out of these stories, and that the hope Beatrice wrote about was actually fulfilled in some manner. If the stories were written -after- it's curious who actually managed to survive and wrote these particular variations of the events on the island. The stories in this case could actually contain tidbits of information on the true events.

My personal interpretation is leaning more towards the first of these two, which would be an interesting fake-out on Ryukishi's part. Actually it'd be the nastiest bait-and-switch I've ever read. >.> It would be possible to suggest that even though Bern says in red that this story will have no happy ending, that it only applies to the story which was forged out of the bottled messages. The story one Rokkenjima itself may actually unexpectedly be a much different story than the one which Beatrice expected and launched into the sea, and one in which a good ending could be met.
ArcticHelm is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 11:12   Link #1003
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
So then what was Will's answer to the actual question, anyway? Who killed Beatrice? Answering the question of who Beatrice may be is a hint, but does it actually demonstrate her "killer?"
This was answered in the game itself. Lyon "killed" Beatrice, because it was impossible for Beatrice to exist if he was there.
__________________
雨の日も晴れの日も
いつの日も愛してた
それだけは 今もまだ
ずっと変りはしない
musouka is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 11:20   Link #1004
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post

In later episodes, Hachijou claims to have written the forgeries signed "Itouikukuro Reigonamu", veracity of this claim is not really confirmed.
Also it is said that a few witch hunters speculate that since Itouikukuro Reigonamu's forgeries are so similar to Beatrice's then they aren't really forgeries but other messages in the bottles that this mysterious author acquired somehow.
Which is the truth of this whole story is impossible to tell with certainty at this point.

Quote:
-Do we have Word of God about the definition of "alternate truth" or "red"? Did Ryuukishi ever talk about Red in detail?
not that I know of.

Quote:
-What exactly did Ryuukishi say about Umineko being solvable again?
Among the interviews I know of, he only explained why he didn't want to give us the assurance that this game is solvable, without ever telling us if it's solvable or not. However in EP6 the characters state pretty clearly that the "games" must necessarily be solvable. In theory this should also be true for the game we are playing.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 12:11   Link #1005
Axilios
Golden penguin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Send a message via MSN to Axilios
Quote:
Do we have Word of God about the definition of "alternate truth" or "red"? Did Ryuukishi ever talk about Red in detail?
One interview from ep2/ep3 was talking about it. I'll try to find it again later, when I will not be busy like now. It is not really, really a definition, but he is talking about red during a long time.

*edit*

http://community.livejournal.com/witchhunters/7366.html here, nothing new but still.
He is also talking about it in... is it anti-mystery vs anti-fantasy?
Well, basically by itself the red worth nothing.
that's all we know about it.
A long time ago it leads me to a theory, saying that the red is not necessarily saying the truth of the gameboard by itself, but is a notice in order to guide Battler to a certain point, which his the truth. Well. I've abandoned this since a long time ago, but I still think that there is a trick with the red itself.

He was also ""clear"" about alternative truth... Well... Clear as Ryukishi can be.
Alternative truth and, right after, talking about THE truth again.

*edit*
http://darenome.wordpress.com/2009/0...i07-interview/

right here; when he is talking about the "several possible answers" aspect which exist as well.
And nothing else about it after this. He flips the table and talks about the same hint which can lead to the answer in different ways.

That's the only time I've read something with Ryukishi talking about alternate truth, personally.


Quote:
Among the interviews I know of, he only explained why he didn't want to give us the assurance that this game is solvable, without ever telling us if it's solvable or not. However in EP6 the characters state pretty clearly that the "games" must necessarily be solvable. In theory this should also be true for the game we are playing.
Maybe he was talking about the game being solvable with ep 1-4?
I don't know, but since he just finished to read 1-4 again, it could be about this part...
If it is about this, we don't have anything precise. Only a
Quote:
"Beato managed to communicate everything she wanted to Battler at the end of EP4."
and a
Quote:
Quick readers reach the answer in EP4, even more weak points are exposed in EP5, and EP6 gives a nearly definitive answer.
When talking about Battler's sin and Beatrice. So theorically this part is solvable in 1-4.

Also, a part that a lot of people forget way too often, to me;
Quote:
"It is possible to solve the "who dunnit", "why dunnit", and "how dunnit" for up to EP4 at least, but this is from Ryuukishi's perspective. Just because it would be possible for him doesn't mean that it will be possible for all the readers, coming from their own perspectives.

Well, that's everything we have from Ryu. He is not really talkative.

Last edited by Axilios; 2010-08-28 at 12:35.
Axilios is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 12:31   Link #1006
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
There is only one truth in Rokkenjima
I find this statement extremely interesting. I always believed it, but I didn't know it was confirmed so clearly. Well It's a relief to see Ryuukishi actually said it.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 13:33   Link #1007
Rui Brennan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
Also, please don't have too high hopes for this. I might be very very wrong. Just assume I'm an arrogant newbie until proved otherwise, that's the best approach. Still need to finish checking a few things before knowing one way or the other.
From another newbie here that also tried to analyze the four games but stopped thinking , can you write some hints of your theory in your future post besides the explanation of the theory itself? That can give me the motivation to see things from another PoV and find that "single truth" that I also seek .
Rui Brennan is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 14:16   Link #1008
TehChron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Wright View Post
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ..........

...Well, I admit I was dumb for a while. This really was a fair mystery from the start, and I was complaining because I couldn't see the answer. I can't believe I was this blind. I think I understand the single truth now.
I know crap about Beatrice-1/2/3 whatever. Lion/Yasu...Not a clue about that. Well, a clue or two.

But I think I managed to understand what happened in the island, and who is the culprit. I need to finish some University stuff and edit a few things my editor asked me, but I'll be back in around a week to present my theory with reds and screenshots to prove it. I can't believe that no one(including me) noticed that before. It's...UGH.

When I tried reading eps 1-4 as one single golden age book, the answer practically screamed at me. Will's "illusions" make a lot of sense when you think like this.

Well played Ryuukishi, you fooled me completely for a while. It's not only fair, it satisfies both Knox and Dine...It abuses a few wordings, but it satisfies them both,

Guaranteed, I could still be wrong, but it fits so well...And if I am wrong further investigation will prove it. Either way this is a fun line of reasoning.

Man if I'm right about this, it will be awesome.
I'm not the expert you are, but I'll take your word for it. Looking forward to seeing how it differs from my own suspicions.
TehChron is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 14:34   Link #1009
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka View Post
This was answered in the game itself. Lyon "killed" Beatrice, because it was impossible for Beatrice to exist if he was there.
That's the most immediately obvious answer, but I'm not sure that's it all by itself. That's the answer which most readily hurts Lyon, much like how the Tea Party hurts Ange. They were put there as spectators for a reason. To say Beatrice was "killed" by the non-existence of Yasu (well, so to speak) is a bit misleading; it doesn't make the concept of Beatrice cease to exist, it just changes the legend.

I think there's something more to it, because of that epilogue. That book in the coffin and Battler's brief presence at the beginning and end could be a hint, though he didn't really speak of Beatrice at all in the epilogue. Though it might be interesting if his answer to "who killed Beatrice" is somehow different from Will's.

Not that I'd fault Will. It's a correct answer, and clearly the one he was intended to reach. But that's my problem with Will generally; he reaches the conclusions he's clearly meant to have been reaching from the start. They follow from the evidence he's been presented, but I sort of feel like he's not as critical of the evidence as he perhaps could be.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 14:47   Link #1010
TehChron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
That's the most immediately obvious answer, but I'm not sure that's it all by itself. That's the answer which most readily hurts Lyon, much like how the Tea Party hurts Ange. They were put there as spectators for a reason. To say Beatrice was "killed" by the non-existence of Yasu (well, so to speak) is a bit misleading; it doesn't make the concept of Beatrice cease to exist, it just changes the legend.

I think there's something more to it, because of that epilogue. That book in the coffin and Battler's brief presence at the beginning and end could be a hint, though he didn't really speak of Beatrice at all in the epilogue. Though it might be interesting if his answer to "who killed Beatrice" is somehow different from Will's.

Not that I'd fault Will. It's a correct answer, and clearly the one he was intended to reach. But that's my problem with Will generally; he reaches the conclusions he's clearly meant to have been reaching from the start. They follow from the evidence he's been presented, but I sort of feel like he's not as critical of the evidence as he perhaps could be.
Unlike Battler did, Will has no reason to really doubt the evidence presented before him.

Sure he may not like it, but he's not really in a position where he needs to be too critical of what he's presented with. I suppose thats just laziness.
TehChron is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 15:23   Link #1011
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
That's the most immediately obvious answer, but I'm not sure that's it all by itself. That's the answer which most readily hurts Lyon, much like how the Tea Party hurts Ange. They were put there as spectators for a reason. To say Beatrice was "killed" by the non-existence of Yasu (well, so to speak) is a bit misleading; it doesn't make the concept of Beatrice cease to exist, it just changes the legend.

I think there's something more to it, because of that epilogue. That book in the coffin and Battler's brief presence at the beginning and end could be a hint, though he didn't really speak of Beatrice at all in the epilogue. Though it might be interesting if his answer to "who killed Beatrice" is somehow different from Will's.

Not that I'd fault Will. It's a correct answer, and clearly the one he was intended to reach. But that's my problem with Will generally; he reaches the conclusions he's clearly meant to have been reaching from the start. They follow from the evidence he's been presented, but I sort of feel like he's not as critical of the evidence as he perhaps could be.
Even so, I don't think this is such an important question.
It was a question made by Bern for Will concerning a crazy game she created herself by placing in a quantum coexistence two different worlds.

This question most probably won't even appear anymore, it born and died with EP7.

If I had to tell who really killed Beatrice ignoring Bern's game, then that's Battler. Both in the metaworld and in the real world. Once Yasu lost her will to play the game she created for Battler to solve, Beatrice died. So in that way Battler killed Beatrice.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 16:41   Link #1012
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Random minor realisation.

Rudolf was "in elementary school" when the family already lived in the mansion. Mansion was completed in 1952. School in Japan starts at 6 years of age, elementary school continues for six years afterwards. It is therefore not possible for Rudolf to have been born earlier than 1940. He cannot have been younger than 20 at the time of Battler's birth, as he needs to be an adult for that, so latest possible birth year is 1948.

Japan was in the war between 1939 and 1945. While in Ep7 Kinzo says he wasn't drafted due to influence of the family elders, he nevertheless volunteered. It is not said exactly when this happened, but generally, birth rate drops during a war not only because many men are drafted, but also because families don't like to raise children in an economically and politically unstable situation, so being born during the war is in itself somewhat doubtful.

But the kicker is... That leaves Rudolf only two time windows to be born from Kinzo -- after 1940 but before Kinzo volunteered (so Kinzo went off with the intention to be killed when he just got a third child, the bastard) or after Kinzo was demobilised (no earlier than 1945) but before 1948. Now that time window is definitely while Beatrice Castiglioni was still alive.

That's even worse than with Rosa, what gives? Is Rudolf even Kinzo's son?
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:16   Link #1013
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
I exclude that Rudolf was born in the 45-48 timespan. That would make Rudolf way too young, and from what Kyrie said it appears that Rudolf has been a womanizer for a while before meeting Asumu.

So I think it's more probable that Rudolf was born between 40-44 and that Kinzo only managed to volunteer after a few years Japan was in war.

At any rate Rudolf must be Kinzo's son. Else Battler wouldn't be qualified to play Beatrice's game. And please... don't tell me that he's Krauss' son...
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:36   Link #1014
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
So I think it's more probable that Rudolf was born between 40-44 and that Kinzo only managed to volunteer after a few years Japan was in war.
Which would make Rudolf 25 at the time of the revival of Western occurs with the so called "spaghetti westerns", which start with 1964 Italian release of A Fistful of Dollars. He's barely the right age to be part of the "Western film loving generation" if he's born in 1948.

Sorry, no matter how you twist it, something has to be a lie.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:42   Link #1015
TehChron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Which would make Rudolf 25 at the time of the revival of Western occurs with the so called "spaghetti westerns", which start with 1964 Italian release of A Fistful of Dollars. He's barely the right age to be part of the "Western film loving generation" if he's born in 1948.

Sorry, no matter how you twist it, something has to be a lie.
He's probably just exaggerating when he says that. And besides, its a fantasy scene, there's no reason to get too serious about it.
TehChron is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:48   Link #1016
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TehChron View Post
He's probably just exaggerating when he says that. And besides, its a fantasy scene, there's no reason to get too serious about it.
Then Ep7 says he owns a lever-action weapon. Exaggerating, you say?...

EDIT: And I think I have located the only case of a Western where someone uses a sawed-off rifle. Problem is, it's a TV series on CBS that ran 1958-1961.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:54   Link #1017
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Sudden realization. What if it's not that someone was born 19 years ago, but that Rudolf was 19 when Battler was born?
Judoh is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 17:59   Link #1018
TehChron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Then Ep7 says he owns a lever-action weapon. Exaggerating, you say?...

EDIT: And I think I have located the only case of a Western where someone uses a sawed-off rifle. Problem is, it's a TV series on CBS that ran 1958-1961.
Then what does that have to do with how old he is? He could be 3 years younger than Battler, own said gun, and still consider himself a part of the western-film loving generation.
TehChron is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 18:00   Link #1019
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Sudden realization. What if it's not that someone was born 19 years ago, but that Rudolf was 19 when Battler was born?
Actually, that would change quite a lot. For one, pressure on Rudolf to marry would be far higher due to the associated scandal.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline  
Old 2010-08-28, 18:11   Link #1020
TehChron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Actually, that would change quite a lot. For one, pressure on Rudolf to marry would be far higher due to the associated scandal.
It wouldn't necessarily change much, I don't think. Ultimately, Asumu and Kyrie were both trying to get Rudolph to marry them. Unless there's something Im missing?
TehChron is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.