Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood General Discussion

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by creb

There are a few sane individuals out there who thought the original FMA adaptation was far superior to the generic shonen trash Brotherhood, precisely because it decided to deviate from the author's generic manga.

I think you're goin' a little bit too far there, my friend. All of this is just a matter of taste, not sanity. You only belittle yourself as an original FMA fan by saying that 'sanity' stuff. Also, I respect the OP for sharing his mind by not insulting the fans of the other side. Don't start a foolish war here. I thought that both version of FMA already told us that war is bad.

[Tong]

That's impossible, if you dont like brotherhood you'll also hate the manga since its the same thing!

[LunarMoon]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

-- Cliches aren't bad just because they are cliche

Yes, though generally, works that include a large amount of clichés are inferior to those that don't. That's why most people advise writers to avoid them.

-- Comparing the philosophical underpinnings of a series that only aired 3 episodes vs a completed one or just quality overall doesn't seem fair unless you compare first 3 episodes vs 3 episdes. If you were doing that, then sorry.

Yes, which is why I said it had the potential to be an extremely good series, but that I still can't fairly judge it as better than say, Full Metal Alchemist (2003), after 3 episodes. Nonetheless, based on only the first 3 episodes, it's already showing serious potential to surpass the 37 episodes of Brotherhood that I watched.

What are exactly these so called philosophical themes?

The first Full Metal Alchemist series had an underlying message similar to that of Kino's Journey. That being, that, "the world isn't beautiful, therefore it is", while juxtaposing it against the more naive view of a just and fair world ruled by Equivalent Exchange. It's not Kant, but that message is still better delivered, and more relevant to the plot, than anything I've seen in Brotherhood as of episode 37

Originally Posted by Tong

That's impossible, if you dont like brotherhood you'll also hate the manga since its the same thing!

As I said in the original post, I don't dislike it. I just don't think that it's better than the first series or that it's the 2nd best anime ever produced; it's an above average shonen, but it's nothing special. I suppose a common way of putting it is that it's overrated. Also, just because something is based closely upon the original work doesn't necessarily mean that it's better.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

The first Full Metal Alchemist series had an underlying message similar to that of Kino's Journey. That being, that, "the world isn't beautiful, therefore it is", while juxtaposing it against the more naive view of a just and fair world ruled by Equivalent Exchange. It's not Kant, but that message is still better delivered, and more relevant to the plot, than anything I've seen in Brotherhood as of episode 37

And that's fine but Brotherhood & the Manga has it's own message. No it's not the same as the original FMA series but that doesn't make it any less deep or meaningful. The FMA Manga and Brotherhood as an extension has a hopeful message about relying on one another, seeing the best in things, and finding meaning even from a painful experience. Yes Brotherhood's ending was overall a happy ending but this doesn't negate its meaning.

If you like sad & tragic endings that's fine but I am tired of people acting like sad=deep and happy=cliche. There are just as many sad endings in anime as there are happy ones. In fact I would say tragic endings are even more common in anime.

Also this whole thing about Brotherhood only being about fights. The first series had a great deal of fights too & there was plenty of focus on that. I guess first anime fans who like to put down Brotherhood just like to conveniently forget this.

[Vicious108]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

Well, I was trying to assess Fate Zero, and decided that for the first few episodes, that it’s easily the best series that I’ve seen in months, if not years. But then I attempted to give it a ranking in regard to wider anime history or even out of the anime in the last ten years, and asked myself whether it really beats such gems as the original Full Metal Alchemist. The answer was a straight no, since while Fate Zero appears to be promising in regard to character development and drama, it still has yet to introduce the sort of major philosophical themes that were present in Full Metal Alchemist or even the later portion of Trigun.

Then I asked whether it surpassed the 2009 Full Metal Alchemist series, and decided that it definitely had the potential to do as such. Why? Because, like the first three episodes of Fate Zero, in the entire 37 episode run that I watched, it covers no major ideological themes that leave you thinking about them after you’ve finished watching it.

The problem with FMA Brotherhood, and this has been mentioned before, is that it indulges in too many shonen clichés, while simultaneously being to lighthearted to inspire a strong emotional response. So it’s nice and happy for those who thought that the 2003 series had too much “angst” (read: realistic character reactions and drama), but then again, the fiction industry is oversaturated with anime that makes people happy but does little else. Thus the first FMA series earns points just from straying from that cliché, and actually attempting to inspire some level of emotional catharsis via tragedy.

I don’t dislike Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood; I’m obligated to like it to even a small extent due to my status as an FMA fan, but I certainly don’t believe that it’s better than the phenomenal 2003 series, or that it earns its number 2 place on MyAnimeList. That spot should be reserved for works such as Grave of the Fireflies or Kenshin: Tsuiokuhen/Trust and Betrayal, works that actually inspire the viewer to think rather than to gawk at pretty action scenes.

Wow. That was one of the most painfully sophomoric posts I've read in recent memory. No wonder you favour the 2003 Fullmetal Alchemist anime and find the likes of Grave of the Fireflies to be the pinnacle of the medium if you sincerely believe depictions of tragedy contain inherent artistic value regardless of their actual execution.

[LunarMoon]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

And that's fine but Brotherhood & the Manga has it's own message. No it's not the same as the original FMA series but that doesn't make it any less deep or meaningful. The FMA Manga and Brotherhood as an extension has a hopeful message about relying on one another, seeing the best in things, and finding meaning even from a painful experience. Yes Brotherhood's ending was overall a happy ending but this doesn't negate its meaning.

The theme of "relying on others" and the general idea surrounding "the power of friendship" is so common in Saturday Morning cartoons that Brotherhood can hardly say to have made that theme its own; it is the obligatory shonen theme, actually done better in shonen fighters such as One Piece. It's been done gracefully, before in a "You Are Not Alone" scene, but Brotherhood didn't really stand out in that regard.

So only tragic series have depth & emotional resonance? Give me a break!

I hear that a lot, but it's usually, ironically enough, used to argue that a happier series (like FMA Brotherhood) is better simply because it's happier and that another series is inferior because it's "angsty". No, tragic series don't inherently have depth but judging from the huge amount of people who use that argument and the related one that I mentioned, you'd think that including any elements of tragedy makes a series instantly inferior.

If you like sad & tragic endings that's fine but I am tired of people acting like sad=deep and happy=cliche. There are just as many sad endings in anime as there are happy ones. In fact I would say tragic endings are even more common in anime.

It would seem difficult to become tired of something when it's the norm to say the exact opposite. At least, in this day age, it seems far more common to disregard a work because it's depressing rather than to disregard one because it's happy. That's why we have "Hollywood Endings", and why bittersweet conclusions in films will typically be changed into happily ever after sequences, so that the audience will give it a chance.

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

Wow. That was one of the most painfully sophomoric posts I've read in recent memory. No wonder you favour the 2003 Fullmetal Alchemist anime and find the likes of Grave of the Fireflies to be the pinnacle of the medium if you sincerely believe depictions of tragedy contain inherent artistic value regardless of their actual execution.

I never said anything about tragedy being inherently better than a work that is happy. I said that there’s an oversaturation of happy works and that the fact that the original series decided not to take that route doesn’t mean that its inferior, since if anything it makes it more refreshingly original. If you had taken time to argue your point logically rather than to throw out a collection of ad hominem attacks at me, then you would have deciphered that.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

I hear that a lot, but it's usually, ironically enough, used to argue that a happier series (like FMA Brotherhood) is better simply because it's happier and that another series is inferior because it's "angsty". No, tragic series don't inherently have depth but judging from the huge amount of people who use that argument and the related one that I mentioned, you'd think that including any elements of tragedy makes a series instantly inferior.

I don't think happier series have more depth. I think whether happy, sad, or bitter-sweet has nothing to do with whether a series has depth. But you are certainly acting like a tragic ending is automatically better and more original; & I am saying that is ridiculous.

There are PLENTY of sad & tragic endings in fiction (these type of endings are not as original as you make them out to be). Just like there are plenty of happy ones. The tone of the ending does not make a series better or worse; it's what the viewer gets out of it & the presentation. And I personally like series with both types of endings. But I certainly don't think one is better or more unique than the other; because it definitely is not. That's why I can enjoy a film like Bicycle Thieves & Singing in the Rain and see the beauty of both.

Now I personally got far more meaning out of Brotherhood's ending than I did out of the first series. If you enjoyed the first series better & it was more meaningful to you well more power to you. But that doesn't mean Brotherhood or the manga lacked depth because it has a hopeful ending.

[Vicious108]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

I never said anything about tragedy being inherently better than a work that is happy. I said that there’s an oversaturation of happy works and that the fact that the original series decided not to take that route doesn’t mean that its inferior, since if anything it makes it more refreshingly original. If you had taken time to argue your point logically rather than to throw out a collection of ad hominem attacks at me, then you would have deciphered that.

I read what you said. Apparently you didn't do the same for me though, since I never addressed any comparison of yours between the merits of a "happy work" and a "sad work", but merely pointed out how pretentiously juvenile your method of assessing an artistic work's value is. And in case you try and claim you never said anything about that as well, I'll highlight the comment in question:

the first FMA series earns points just from (...) attempting to inspire some level of emotional catharsis via tragedy.

Now how is that not a claim that "depictions of tragedy contain inherent artistic value regardless of their actual execution"? And even as far as a comparison between the two different types of works goes, you're also clearly implying that attempting to inspire some level of emotional catharsis via hopefulness (i.e. FMA manga/Brotherhood) doesn't earn as many "points" as attempting to do it via tragedy. And what that consequently implies is that the quality of a work should be measured through its tone, rather than its execution. Your tastes perfectly reflect that as well and as such your assessment of the merits of the two different FMA series is accordingly biased from the get-go.

Oh well, not my problem. Don't lemme stop you from revelling in your pseudo-philosophical melodrama and looking down on anything that tries to provoke an emotional resonance through something other than tragedy (and the supposed originality of taking a tragedy-esque direction in a storyline doesn't count for much either when said tragic elements are poorly implemented and sloppily written, not containing much of a purpose other than drama for the sake of drama (i.e. 2003 FMA anime), but that's neither here nor there).

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

The theme of "relying on others" and the general idea surrounding "the power of friendship" is so common in Saturday Morning cartoons that Brotherhood can hardly say to have made that theme its own; it is the obligatory shonen theme, actually done better in shonen fighters such as One Piece. It's been done gracefully, before in a "You Are Not Alone" scene, but Brotherhood didn't really stand out in that regard

Sorry I missed this before when I replied in my other post.

Has the theme of "relying on others" been done before? Certainly! But you know what so has the theme of the "hero" going at it alone to protect his loved one (ie: the first series).

They are both cliches it just depends on which one you prefer. And yes there are plenty of other cliches in the first series too.

Finally I never said the Fullmetal Alchemist manga/Brotherhood was about the "power of friendship". All I said was it was about relying on others and not solely one's own power. This is an important lesson for the brothers in the manga who early on try to do everything alone and don't trust others, slowly but surely they start to open up to others, tell them their problems, and rely on them.

More important there is strong aspect of the adults in the series working with the teens of the story and helping them out. If anything I would say it's far more common for stories to have the teenagers have to "grow up" & save the world on their own. In Fullmetal Alchemist for Ed & Al growing up was accepting help from others & learning to trust in adults.

As for One Piece I definitely enjoy it for what it is, but no I don't think it works its themes the same way as Fullmetal Alchemist at all. Maybe if you only look at both series on a very superficial level.

[wisteria233]

If I was to compare the first adaptation (I'll never call it original because an adaptation is not an original work) to the second adaptation and the manga I'd have to say that the second adaptation was actually more enjoyable for me.

Just because a work is dark and has some controversial themes doesn't make it deep and mature, just like a series that is overall hopeful and happy doesn't make it shallow and childish, and the first and second adaptations are prime examples of this.

In Brotherhood, they had quite a few themes such as moving on from the horrible things you faced in the past, placing your trust in others, forgiving yourself and those that have wronged you, and redeeming yourself from the crimes that you committed in the past, etc. all of which were realized and handled with great maturity. Though I tend to laugh at anyone who claims the manga and Brotherhood unrealistic considering that many of the characters in the manga and brotherhood were actually based on real people, just goes to prove that sometimes life isn't always pain and sorrow, people can and do move on with their lives.

As for why I think that the first adaptation wasn't as good (for the record I've always had problems with it) is not because of the angst and dark elements, in fact I love series with angst and dark elements (my love of Bokurano, Now and Then Here and There and Mirai Nikki can attest to that) its the way it handled those dark elements. With the first adaptation it seemed like it just used those elements were to just shock you, so that it could get a knee jerk reaction from you, but unfortunately it couldn't shock me so instead I was left wondering what the point was to them introducing the dark elements to begin with, especially when they came up out of no where and didn't really have a meaningless. Which ultimately gave me the impression that it was more preoccupied with topping the last the dark element it introduced than it was with just telling its story, which ended up making the story feel contrived.

[LunarMoon]

Huge post, but I tried to respond to as many posts as possible.

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

I read what you said. Apparently you didn't do the same for me though, since I never addressed any comparison of yours between the merits of a "happy work" and a "sad work", but merely pointed out how pretentiously juvenile your method of assessing an artistic work's value is. And in case you try and claim you never said anything about that as well, I'll highlight the comment in question:

Yes, Endless Twilight. You got me. Clearly I hate all happy works, while stating that Superman and One Piece executed certain elements more effectively than FMA. Or perhaps I have better grasp of my own opinion than you do and like FMA 2003 over Brotherhood for other reasons than the fact that it's not tragic. As for pretentiousness, I would identify that term more with insulting other posters, while simultaneously throwing around words such as "juvenile" if their viewpoints differ from your own. I suppose the proper word for that would be "humble"?

Now how is that not a claim that "depictions of tragedy contain inherent artistic value regardless of their actual execution"? And even as far as a comparison between the two different types of works goes, you're also clearly implying that attempting to inspire some level of emotional catharsis via hopefulness (i.e. FMA manga/Brotherhood) doesn't earn as many "points" as attempting to do it via tragedy. And what that consequently implies is that the quality of a work should be measured through its tone, rather than its execution. Your tastes perfectly reflect that as well and as such your assessment of the merits of the two different FMA series is accordingly biased from the get-go.

Happy, and uplifting tones are the overwhelming norm, and anything that differs from that norm will earn points for being “refreshing”, especially if the author, say, kills off a popular character knowing full well that they’ll receive some sort of backlash from the fan base, in which case it also indicates some level of artistic integrity. Of course, being refreshing or unusual doesn’t make one work better than the other; that responsibility lies with the execution of the unusual or even original element, but yes, it does add points to works that are already high quality, which is why well put together works are often praised for tackling issue that are often overlooked or for introducing an unusual element to its plot.

That would be the difference between a poorly done tragic series such as Basilisk and well done drama such as FMA 2003. One lacks anything resembling a plot, while the other uses its unusual elements to improve upon the entire whole. It adds points in the same way that not including a dragon in a fantasy adds points, but no one really cares that Harry Potter includes them, because both that creative point and everything else is so well written. Likewise, I would say the exact opposite if tragic elements suddenly became the norm (a “Reverse Hollywood Ending”?), while uplifting works suddenly became unusual shocks.

Oh well, not my problem. Don't lemme stop you from revelling in your pseudo-philosophical melodrama and looking down on anything that tries to provoke an emotional resonance through something other than tragedy (and the supposed originality of taking a tragedy-esque direction in a storyline doesn't count for much either when said tragic elements are poorly implemented and sloppily written, not containing much of a purpose other than drama for the sake of drama (i.e. 2003 FMA anime), but that's neither here nor there).

Speaking of looking down on others…

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

There are PLENTY of sad & tragic endings in fiction (these type of endings are not as original as you make them out to be). Just like there are plenty of happy ones. The tone of the ending does not make a series better or worse; it's what the viewer gets out of it & the presentation. And I personally like series with both types of endings. But I certainly don't think one is better or more unique than the other; because it definitely is not. That's why I can enjoy a film like Bicycle Thieves & Singing in the Rain and see the beauty of both.

The representation is far more balanced in written fiction than visual, high budget fiction, since in written, low budget fiction, the publishers don't have to worry about alienating most of the audience with a depressing ending, and failing to break even. That's also why a lot of movies adapted from books will either change a depressing ending to be more happy or end the movie before the depressing incident in either the book, or the true incident that the story is based upon. In visual, high budget, fiction such as anime, however, it really is a trope to make the ending as uplifting as possible, which is why an actual term, Hollywood Ending, is used to refer to American works that do this.

Has the theme of "relying on others" been done before? Certainly! But you know what so has the theme of the "hero" going at it alone to protect his loved one (ie: the first series).

It was indeed a cliché and FMA 2003, like every work created before it, contains numerous other clichés, but that cliché wasn't its main theme.

More important there is strong aspect of the adults in the series working with the teens of the story and helping them out. If anything I would say it's far more common for stories to have the teenagers have to "grow up" & save the world on their own. In Fullmetal Alchemist for Ed & Al growing up was accepting help from others & learning to trust in adults.

True, though the central idea of using equivalent exchange as a metaphor throughout the work, actually making the viewer accept its ideological premise, and then hitting the viewer with the idea that both its physical application within the universe, and its ideological argument that the world is a fair place in which sacrifice and hard work are generally rewarded, were false, was so well done it tended to overshadow the other themes in my eyes, making it the central theme of the work. This is especially true since the theme is verbally recapped by Mustang at the end, without really mentioning the importance of self-reliance.

As for One Piece I definitely enjoy it for what it is, but no I don't think it works its themes the same way as Fullmetal Alchemist at all. Maybe if you only look at both series on a very superficial level.

I disagree. I believe that its theme of trusting others and allowing them to help you were very well stated in the Arlong, Water 7, and Ennies Lobby Arcs. With Brotherhood, though I prefer it to One Piece overall, I can't think of a scene, in the first 37 episodes, that really exemplifies that theme, to the same extent.

Originally Posted by wisteria233

As for why I think that the first adaptation wasn't as good (for the record I've always had problems with it) is not because of the angst and dark elements, in fact I love series with angst and dark elements (my love of Bokurano, Now and Then Here and There and Mirai Nikki can attest to that) its the way it handled those dark elements. With the first adaptation it seemed like it just used those elements were to just shock you, so that it could get a knee jerk reaction from you, but unfortunately it couldn't shock me so instead I was left wondering what the point was to them introducing the dark elements to begin with, especially when they came up out of no where and didn't really have a meaningless. Which ultimately gave me the impression that it was more preoccupied with topping the last the dark element it introduced than it was with just telling its story, which ended up making the story feel contrived.

I don't agree. I'd say that Gantz is a better example of a series that uses dark elements to shock the viewer. When I think of using dark elements to shock the viewer, I don't think of Full Metal Alchemist 2003, which displayed the characters having to deal with every unpleasant circumstance introduced. Instead, I think of some 90's super hero comic where a character is raped or dismembered, and then the incident is never discussed or explored again. Including dark elements as gore porn or as an excuse for one character to be angry at another.

[wisteria233]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

I don't agree. I'd say that Gantz is a better example of a series that uses dark elements to shock the viewer. When I think of using dark elements to shock the viewer, I don't think of Full Metal Alchemist 2003, which displayed the characters having to deal with every unpleasant circumstance introduced. Instead, I think of some 90's super hero comic where a character is raped or dismembered, and then the incident is never discussed or explored again. Including dark elements as gore porn or as an excuse for one character to be angry at another.

Gantz is a horrible series, because like the 2003 its only trying to shock not tell a story. And like the 2003 if it fails to shock you and get that knee-jerk reaction, then the story itself fails. Any series that is more preoccupied with doing this is not good series, its childish. Also the 2003 series did just introduce those dark elements to shock you, otherwise tell me what was the point to Rose's character, and everything they did to her? What ultimately was the point to Dante? What the the point of having Mustang be the one who killed Winry's parents? Heck, what the point to the entire later half of the series?-- all of these dark elements had nothing to do with the story that themes that they had set up previously, heck pursuing some of these elements lead to the 2003 outright abandoning some of those themes. That is what I am talking about the dark elements in the 2003 version didn't serve a purpose, they were just there.

Dark elements isn't just gore and porn, it also includes things like matricide, ,filicide, patricide, and rape (which is what happened to Rose), and things you can't really define like Dante's entire character, etc.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

It was indeed a cliché and FMA 2003, like every work created before it, contains numerous other clichés, but that cliché wasn't its main theme.

And FMA's theme of the world not being perfect has also been done before..as you said in Kino's Journey (and that was a far more interesting & compelling series).

The first series also had plenty of other cliches: such as sacrificing yourself (which the manga thankfully negated); and the whole peaceful VS loud brother.

True, though the central idea of using equivalent exchange as a metaphor throughout the work, actually making the viewer accept its ideological premise, and then hitting the viewer with the idea that both its physical application within the universe, and its ideological argument that the world is a fair place in which sacrifice and hard work are generally rewarded, were false, was so well done it tended to overshadow the other themes in my eyes, making it the central theme of the work. This is especially true since the theme is verbally recapped by Mustang at the end, without really mentioning the importance of self-reliance.

Spoiler for Manga Equivalent Exchange:

And in the manga/Brotherhood they also overturn equivalent exchange by improving the concept. Equivalent exchange giving 1 for 1 is not a bad thing or false. It's not a way the world has to work but it's not a bad way to live you life and even better if you give 2 for 1.

I disagree. I believe that its theme of trusting others and allowing them to help you were very well stated in the Arlong, Water 7, and Ennies Lobby Arcs. With Brotherhood, though I prefer it to One Piece overall, I can't think of a scene, in the first 37 episodes, that really exemplifies that theme, to the same extent.

Good for you that you prefer it in other series. But besides one speech Ed gives to Envy and maybe something he says at the end; FMA is way more subtle with this theme.

The theme is shown throughout the series not in GRAND moments like in One Piece with Luffy rescuing his Nakama. It's in small scenes like

Spoiler for Examples:

Maria Ross telling Ed to trust in adults, it's in Ed sharing with Winry what is going on with him and Al (after not telling her what is up so long); it's in asking for help from Olivier Armstrong and sharing their secrets, etc, etc. And there are more instances too. But these small moments are why Ed & Al gain enough allies to win in the end.

And it's further explored

Spoiler for for Ending:

By Ed giving up alchemy and realizing he doesn't have to use this individual power that leads to arrogance because he has so many people to rely on

Don't get me wrong I love One Piece but they are very different in their approach and I really don't see how you can say one is better than the other. One Piece is more about relying on your friends/Nakama, FMA is about not thinking you can or should do everything alone. It's a subtle difference but it is different.

Happy, and uplifting tones are the overwhelming norm, and anything that differs from that norm will earn points for being “refreshing”

No really they are not. I consume a lot of fiction in many different mediums & tragic tones are just as common as uplifting ones. In fact killing off characters for shock value seems to be a new norm in fiction.

There is nothing refreshing about a tragic tone to a story. What is refreshing is a well told story no matter the tone.

The representation is far more balanced in written fiction than visual, high budget fiction, since in written, low budget fiction, the publishers don't have to worry about alienating most of the audience with a depressing ending, and failing to break even.

And yet I named two films as an example to you. But as for "Hollywood Ending" that was more about the studio era not now. Now there are plenty of tragic popular Hollywood Movies (does Titantic ring a bell). Of course being tragic doesn't make something a masterpiece.

And besides we are talking about anime and with anime tragic & bitter sweet endings are common and nothing special.


edit: Added more spoiler tags just in case!

[LunarMoon]

Originally Posted by wisteria233

Gantz is a horrible series, because like the 2003 its only trying to shock not tell a story. And like the 2003 if it fails to shock you and get that knee-jerk reaction, then the story itself fails. Any series that is more preoccupied with doing this is not good series, its childish.

Gantz is an action anime with one mindless-violence filled battle after another, and it never examines any of its grotesqueries. Full Metal Alchemist is a drama, or as Endless Twilight put it, a "melodrama". It doesn't seem fair to compare FMA 2003 to something like Gantz, if only due to the genre.

Also, though I agree with you about Gantz, I don't dislike it because it's childish. The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, The Hobbit, and Chronicles of Narnia are childish, because, well, all of them were originally written for children, but they're still better than the overwhelming majority of fictional works. No, I dislike Gantz, and works similar to it, because it’s a mindless gore fest that fails to inspire any sort of emotional response for me. Art's purpose is to inspire an emotional response in its audience; that emotional response may vary from happiness, to sadness, to disgust, but if it inspires nothing, then in fails as an artistic work. Mindless violence, which FMA 2003 isn't, inspires nothing but apathy in me.

Originally Posted by wisteria233

Also the 2003 series did just introduce those dark elements to shock you, otherwise tell me what was the point to Rose's character, and everything they did to her? What ultimately was the point to Dante? What the the point of having Mustang be the one who killed Winry's parents? Heck, what the point to the entire later half of the series?-- all of these dark elements had nothing to do with the story that themes that they had set up previously, heck pursuing some of these elements lead to the 2003 outright abandoning some of those themes. That is what I am talking about the dark elements in the 2003 version didn't serve a purpose, they were just there.

Dark elements isn't just gore and porn, it also includes things like matricide, ,filicide, patricide, and rape (which is what happened to Rose), and things you can't really define like Dante's entire character, etc.

Spoiler for Multiple Spoilers For Full Metal Alchemist 2003:

Rose's circumstances were the same as what happened to the rest of Lior, which of course had been largely slaughtered by the military, in that it exemplifies how Ed's childish naivety and careless stupidity at leaving a political vacuum, had affected the city. The scene in which Scar explained what had occurred after removing Cornello hit me, if only because it was the only scene in which Scar could claim moral superiority over Edward.

As for Dante, I vastly preferred her as a villain to Father. Dante's motivation were far more human than Father's. I haven't watched past episode 40 of Brotherhood, yet, but based upon what I've seen and upon what I've heard about the end of the Brotherhood, Father has these generic motivations that relate to becoming an all-powerful god. Dante's motivations were more complex. Sure, she claimed to want to extend her life in order to protect humanity from itself, but it was obvious that her real motivation lay in her fear of death, contrasted with Hohenheim's graceful acceptance of it. That's far more relatable. The rotting of her body was made to illustrate the price that she paid for performing an act that no human being supposedly has any right to perform. I never agreeded with that last theme, since I'm a science and technology enthusiast, but I can see where the writers were going with it.

As for Mustang's killing of Winry's parents, I prefer what occurred in FMA 2003, since Mustang, from the get-go, is established as a fundamentally good person, which forces Winry to confront the fact that "fundamentally good people" are capable of doing horrible things. It also continues to hammer home Mustang's motivation to become the Fuhrer, since doing so would prevent him from ever having to "just follow orders" ever again.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

Spoiler for Multiple Spoilers For Full Metal Alchemist 2003:

Dante's motivation were far more human than Father's. I haven't watched past episode 40 of Brotherhood, yet, but based upon what I've seen and upon what I've heard about the end of the Brotherhood, Father has these generic motivations that relate to becoming an all-powerful god.

Spoiler for about Father:

Maybe that's because Father in Brotherhood is not a human? He's the original homunculus IIRC. So, it's natural that his motivations/actions are less (or even not) humane.

[Kirarakim]

Father's Motivation

Spoiler for For Ending:

Was not simply becoming a god. He started off as a thing in a flask and gradually he wanted to better and better himself where his arrogance grew and grew. The exact opposite of Ed who becomes less arrogant as the series goes on.
In fact we can relate this to humanity too. If you take father as a metaphor for misuse of technology. Of course it doesn't have to apply to only that. It can really be anything where we are not happy with what we have.

As for the whole Roy/Winry thing unfortunately the first anime made it all about Roy. Winry's loss & what it did to her was barely a factor. It was just a way to give Roy more angst.

Spoiler for For Ishval:

Not to mention it was pretty ridiculous that Roy's angst seemed to only stem from this and not from the fact that he committed genocide. Did the Ishvalans not matter in the story? Only Winry's parents? In the manga at least he feels guilty for what he did in Ishval

[wisteria233]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

Gantz is an action anime with one mindless-violence filled battle after another, and it never examines any of its grotesqueries. Full Metal Alchemist is a drama, or as Endless Twilight put it, a "melodrama". It doesn't seem fair to compare FMA 2003 to something like Gantz, if only due to the genre.

Also, though I agree with you about Gantz, I don't dislike it because it's childish. The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, The Hobbit, and Chronicles of Narnia are childish, because, well, all of them were originally written for children, but they're still better than the overwhelming majority of fictional works. No, I dislike Gantz, and works similar to it, because it’s a mindless gore fest that fails to inspire any sort of emotional response for me. Art's purpose is to inspire an emotional response in its audience; that emotional response may vary from happiness, to sadness, to disgust, but if it inspires nothing, then in fails as an artistic work. Mindless violence, which FMA 2003 isn't, inspires nothing but apathy in me.

And now you show that you don't know the meaning of words you are using When someone says that something is childish then they are calling it immature, it has nothing to do with mood or themes of a series, but rather how it approaches it. All of the examples you listed aren't childish series at all as each and everyone of them approaches their themes with a sense of maturity, and even then a series being childish isn't a bad thing. What makes a series bad is the story itself.

Also the 2003 did the same thing that Gantz did in that they only wanted a knee jerk emotional response, and in its same vein all of it was unnecessary and if it failed to elicit an emotional response out of you would only leave you confused as to why they did that. Again, I am not talking about content, I am talking about the method.

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

Spoiler for Multiple Spoilers For Full Metal Alchemist 2003:

Rose's circumstances were the same as what happened to the rest of Lior, which of course had been largely slaughtered by the military, in that it exemplifies how Ed's childish naivety and careless stupidity at leaving a political vacuum, had affected the city. The scene in which Scar explained what had occurred after removing Cornello hit me, if only because it was the only scene in which Scar could claim moral superiority over Edward.

As for Dante, I vastly preferred her as a villain to Father. Dante's motivation were far more human than Father's. I haven't watched past episode 40 of Brotherhood, yet, but based upon what I've seen and upon what I've heard about the end of the Brotherhood, Father has these generic motivations that relate to becoming an all-powerful god. Dante's motivations were more complex. Sure, she claimed to want to extend her life in order to protect humanity from itself, but it was obvious that her real motivation lay in her fear of death, contrasted with Hohenheim's graceful acceptance of it. That's far more relatable. The rotting of her body was made to illustrate the price that she paid for performing an act that no human being supposedly has any right to perform. I never agreeded with that last theme, since I'm a science and technology enthusiast, but I can see where the writers were going with it.

As for Mustang's killing of Winry's parents, I prefer what occurred in FMA 2003, since Mustang, from the get-go, is established as a fundamentally good person, which forces Winry to confront the fact that "fundamentally good people" are capable of doing horrible things. It also continues to hammer home Mustang's motivation to become the Fuhrer, since doing so would prevent him from ever having to "just follow orders" ever again.

You know what its no use using the spoiler for 2003 series because of its age.

Your not answering my question, I know what happened but again, what was the point to all of that? What was the point to having Rose being raped, she hadn't been around since episode 2 so I didn't feel anything for her character, the emotional response was lost on me. Heck what was the point to what happened with Lior, Lior hasn't been around for just as long, so again what was the point of doing that to Lior, especially since Lior is already a part of the country so what was the point of the war, especially since Dante didn't have as much influence as Father did, how did they even explain this to the other higher ups? Yes one of the themes was War is hell but the effects Ishvalan war already drove that point home.

What was the point to Dante's character, I'm not talking about motivation or emotional response I'm asking for the point. She's just some crone whose afraid of dying. That's it there's nothing special about her, she's not smarter than anybody else, she's lacks charisma, and she wasn't that great at alchemy either, and her influence was also severely limited to just the homunculus. So how the heck was she able to do what she did? And for that matter what was ultimately the point to having her as a villain.

And also about Mustang and Winry's parents they didn't do anything with it, it was just introduced and like everything else dropped. They didn't even have Winry confront him about it, or even have tell Winry. It was just used as another reason to make Roy angst, the Ishvalans that he killed were people as well, so he was already in the wrong for killing those innocent civilians (which was already an established fact that most if not all alchemists killed civilians). By only having him concern himself with the Rockbells is like saying that the Ishvalans are less than them, which is actually a pretty racist message. There was literally no point having Roy kill Winry's parents to try and drive that point home, the fact that he (as well as many of the other characters) was involved with the Ishval war already drove that point home, introducing that and not doing anything with it was just unnecessary.

[LunarMoon]

Sorry for the long delay in the response. A slew of projects, exams, and a few extra errands kept me busy, but now that I have some time to breath, it’s time to get back into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

No really they are not. I consume a lot of fiction in many different mediums & tragic tones are just as common as uplifting ones. In fact killing off characters for shock value seems to be a new norm in fiction.

I'm just not seeing it, though that may have to do with the fact that I've oversaturated myself with American media over the last two years. You may have a point with Japanese media, though. I decided to scan through my MAL and counted a 12 to 9 ratios in terms of endings that were happy to bittersweet or depressing. Of course, I've gone out of my way to avoid harem anime and moe shows such as K-ON and Squid Girl, so I'm not sure about how the ratio would add up with the large influx of those over the last few years.

Originally Posted by wisteria233

And now you show that you don't know the meaning of words you are using When someone says that something is childish then they are calling it immature, it has nothing to do with mood or themes of a series, but rather how it approaches it. All of the examples you listed aren't childish series at all as each and everyone of them approaches their themes with a sense of maturity, and even then a series being childish isn't a bad thing. What makes a series bad is the story itself.

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. –C.S. Lewis

This is what I was getting at. The idea of using the word “childish” as a form of deprecation irks me, since it implies an obsession with “being very grown up”. If you mean “mindless” or “gimmicky” than it’s just within my pet peeve to use those words, since the other implies more about the speaker than it necessarily does about the topic. Basically, it’s this obsession with watching something, because it’s “mature” that bothers me, though kudos for giving points to Lewis Carol.

You know what its no use using the spoiler for 2003 series because of its age.

It's easy to place spoiler tags on this forum, so I tend to do so for just about anything. If this were Gamefaqs, where you have to skip multiple lines in order to prevent yourself from posting a spoiler than I wouldn't bother with it, but here it's so convenient that I might as well do so. Even though the series is old, it doesn't mean that everyone's seen it. I know a lot of people in their twenties who have yet to see the Godfather and the vast majority of other old movies, though they've been out for half a century or more. It just depends on when you get around to seeing something.

Anyway, the following is my assessment of the series after watching it, and isn't really a direct response to anyone. It's pretty long so I decided to place it into spoiler tags to seperate the content. I mentioned that I was unimpressed by Brotherhood. That's largely due to the hype I had coming into it; I just can't see it as a #2 series, or as better than the 2003 anime.

Spoiler for Assessment of FMA Brotherhood:

Reading under the spoiler tags tempted me to go ahead and finish the series. As many of the other critics noted, it really hits its stride during the conclusion, created some actual pathos, and developed a few of the characters more than they had been developed in the first anime. Kimbley became more than a cackling psycho, Greed, in an interesting twist, actually obtained main character status, providing him with all of the development that this entails, Al became less overshadowed by his brother than in 2003, and we were allowed to see more to Scar than the angry serial killer, seeking revenge for the war in Ishval. That said, the first anime provided us with better character development for Lust, a more compelling motivation for Envy, a villain with more relatable motivations, and an arguably more applicable theme, cleverly built up throughout the span of the series. That last point, combined with the fact that the first anime was able to engross me at the half-way point, while the Brotherhood took 40 episodes, is why I ultimately need to provide more of a nod to the first anime.

About Brotherhood’s theme, by the way. Upon seeing the last few episodes, I’m going to have to disagree with Kirakim on what it is. “Trusting people” is definitely a prominent theme, and one that I already mentioned I believed to have been done too often before, but the actual theme of Brotherhood seems to be, “Sacrifices are necessary. You can’t gain anything without losing something first. Although, if you can endure that pain, and walk away from it, you’ll find that you’ll now have a heart strong enough to overcome any obstacle”, which is of course the final line of the series. And this is where the “arguable” part comes in. I sacrificed absolutely nothing to be born into a 1st world country, to obtain my initial socioeconomic rank, or to be provided with the set of talents, intellectual, or physical assets that I was born with. 2003, seemed more nuanced in its thematic set-up in that it actually acknowledged this. And it wasn’t all “lol grimdark” about it, either. As Hohenheim, himself, put it, there’s nothing he could have given to be blessed with the family that he had.

None of this is an issue if you just watch Brotherhood as entertainment, which is what I strongly advise. As long as you don’t buy into the hype about it being the “pinnacle of anime” then you can easily enjoy it, as I did after a while, for what it is: an above average, if enthralling, action anime with some great character development and drama thrown in. Brotherhood is placed as #2 on the MAL list. If you constructed a list of the best films or of the best novels, what would make it into the top ten? The Godfather? Citizen Kane? Perhaps George Orwell’s 1984? It’s kind of like the copies of Action Comic that I buy every month or the other superhero comics that I pick up every week. They’re extremely entertaining stuff, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re the next Lawrence of Arabia or even the second coming of It’s A Wonderful Life. They’re great for what they are. Above average, sometimes even below average, action books that, nonetheless, pale in comparison to Watchmen or the various indie comics that I’ve never bothered to read. But I’m not going to sit down with a literature major and argue that they’re the pinnacle of the medium, either.

Something like Grave of the Fireflies? That’s an anime that I could introduce to a literature major in the same way that I’d hand someone who hates superhero comics a copy of Watchmen. It’s a memoir of the author’s experience amidst the Tokyo fire bombings and what he wished could have occurred due to an extreme sense of survivor’s guilt. In that regard, it’s art in its purest form: a communication of the author’s most profound emotions to the audience. Every once in a while, the thought that the Japanese have a nationalistic complex about World War II, in which they narrate their suffering without acknowledging the atrocities that the military committed during the period, makes me cynical. Then, as silly as it may sound, I recall Grave of the Firefly, and remember that regardless of the actions of the government, that innocent civilians suffered, and that the amount of sympathy that should be provided for people has nothing to do with their country of citizenship, the actions of their governing body, or the time period in which they were born, as something such as Grave of the Firefly could have taken place in Vietnam, Nanking, Nuremberg, or London, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. That’s staying power and what separates “entertaining art” from “great art”. They make the audience think about ideas that they may otherwise be adverse to.

[wisteria233]

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

I'm just not seeing it, though that may have to do with the fact that I've oversaturated myself with American media over the last two years. You may have a point with Japanese media, though. I decided to scan through my MAL and counted a 12 to 9 ratios in terms of endings that were happy to bittersweet or depressing. Of course, I've gone out of my way to avoid harem anime and moe shows such as K-ON and Squid Girl, so I'm not sure about how the ratio would add up with the large influx of those over the last few years.

American series do those kind of things for shock value as well.

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

This is what I was getting at. The idea of using the word “childish” as a form of deprecation irks me, since it implies an obsession with “being very grown up”. If you mean “mindless” or “gimmicky” than it’s just within my pet peeve to use those words, since the other implies more about the speaker than it necessarily does about the topic. Basically, it’s this obsession with watching something, because it’s “mature” that bothers me, though kudos for giving points to Lewis Carol.

See, you yourself were implying was that only series that are dark are good, and you yourself were calling FMA:B and the manga childish yourself, for not being as dark as the 2003 adaptation. You were the one calling FMA:B childish and judging its merits based off of that, which people other members on this forums pointed out made you seem child yourself. So don't even try to get on your high horse now, its already too late.

Originally Posted by LunarMoon

Spoiler for Assessment of FMA Brotherhood:

Reading under the spoiler tags tempted me to go ahead and finish the series. As many of the other critics noted, it really hits its stride during the conclusion, created some actual pathos, and developed a few of the characters more than they had been developed in the first anime. Kimbley became more than a cackling psycho, Greed, in an interesting twist, actually obtained main character status, providing him with all of the development that this entails, Al became less overshadowed by his brother than in 2003, and we were allowed to see more to Scar than the angry serial killer, seeking revenge for the war in Ishval. That said, the first anime provided us with better character development for Lust, a more compelling motivation for Envy, a villain with more relatable motivations, and an arguably more applicable theme, cleverly built up throughout the span of the series. That last point, combined with the fact that the first anime was able to engross me at the half-way point, while the Brotherhood took 40 episodes, is why I ultimately need to provide more of a nod to the first anime.

About Brotherhood’s theme, by the way. Upon seeing the last few episodes, I’m going to have to disagree with Kirakim on what it is. “Trusting people” is definitely a prominent theme, and one that I already mentioned I believed to have been done too often before, but the actual theme of Brotherhood seems to be, “Sacrifices are necessary. You can’t gain anything without losing something first. Although, if you can endure that pain, and walk away from it, you’ll find that you’ll now have a heart strong enough to overcome any obstacle”, which is of course the final line of the series. And this is where the “arguable” part comes in. I sacrificed absolutely nothing to be born into a 1st world country, to obtain my initial socioeconomic rank, or to be provided with the set of talents, intellectual, or physical assets that I was born with. 2003, seemed more nuanced in its thematic set-up in that it actually acknowledged this. And it wasn’t all “lol grimdark” about it, either. As Hohenheim, himself, put it, there’s nothing he could have given to be blessed with the family that he had.

None of this is an issue if you just watch Brotherhood as entertainment, which is what I strongly advise. As long as you don’t buy into the hype about it being the “pinnacle of anime” then you can easily enjoy it, as I did after a while, for what it is: an above average, if enthralling, action anime with some great character development and drama thrown in. Brotherhood is placed as #2 on the MAL list. If you constructed a list of the best films or of the best novels, what would make it into the top ten? The Godfather? Citizen Kane? Perhaps George Orwell’s 1984? It’s kind of like the copies of Action Comic that I buy every month or the other superhero comics that I pick up every week. They’re extremely entertaining stuff, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re the next Lawrence of Arabia or even the second coming of It’s A Wonderful Life. They’re great for what they are. Above average, sometimes even below average, action books that, nonetheless, pale in comparison to Watchmen or the various indie comics that I’ve never bothered to read. But I’m not going to sit down with a literature major and argue that they’re the pinnacle of the medium, either.

Something like Grave of the Fireflies? That’s an anime that I could introduce to a literature major in the same way that I’d hand someone who hates superhero comics a copy of Watchmen. It’s a memoir of the author’s experience amidst the Tokyo fire bombings and what he wished could have occurred due to an extreme sense of survivor’s guilt. In that regard, it’s art in its purest form: a communication of the author’s most profound emotions to the audience. Every once in a while, the thought that the Japanese have a nationalistic complex about World War II, in which they narrate their suffering without acknowledging the atrocities that the military committed during the period, makes me cynical. Then, as silly as it may sound, I recall Grave of the Firefly, and remember that regardless of the actions of the government, that innocent civilians suffered, and that the amount of sympathy that should be provided for people has nothing to do with their country of citizenship, the actions of their governing body, or the time period in which they were born, as something such as Grave of the Firefly could have taken place in Vietnam, Nanking, Nuremberg, or London, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. That’s staying power and what separates “entertaining art” from “great art”. They make the audience think about ideas that they may otherwise be adverse to.

Actually I would call the 2003 series lolgrimdark as much of its dark components ultimately didn't have a purpose for being there, and was just there to get a response. But storyline wise it doesn't make any sense, and comes across as juvenile. The thing about Lust's character in the 2003 version is that she was meaningless (much like Rose and many other female characters in that story), none of that character development they gave her meant anything overall, quite like much of the series. Actually there are a lot unfortunate implication in the 2003 adaptation both about women (ironic since the original series the adaptation was based on was written and drawn by a woman) and about race in general.

Also the things you just mentioned in FMA:B started before episode 40, Also kirakim is right about "trusting others" being a theme of Brotherhood and the manga, as Ed wouldn't have been able to been able to make it that far, it he didn't trust in others. Though the show never told us this, it showed us this through the actions of the characters and the fact that, it was the trust that they had for one another that ultimately made the coup d'etat successful.

Not series has to have dark elements to be considered good. In fact a series that has dark elements just to have them is not a good series at all. Also as I said before quite a few of the story lines and characters in Brotherhood were actually based off of real people and what they went through so you might want to refrain from even trying to imply that the the story and characters are unrealistic and childish.

Spoiler for off topic:

Also Grave of Fireflies was not about survivor's guilt, considering that the little girl doesn't die until the end of the movie. And the brother admits to forgetting about her. Survivor's guilt happens when someone cannot move on with their life, the older brother moved on with his. Therefore survivor's guilt was never a theme.

But again it seems like to you in order for a series to be considered "mature" and good it must have dark elements in it, and I've really gotta say that makes you seem juvenile.

[Kirarakim]

Lunar Moon:

It's fine that you liked the first series more or that it's philosophy came through stronger to you. Everyone has a different opinion and frankly everyone gets something different out of fiction. My issue is when people say Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood (or the Manga) lacks depth in comparison. No it doesn't, it just presents itself in a different way and that different way had more depth for me.

As for the theme of Ed having to "trust others" well I will stick by what I said. Like I said there is no grand speech or pivotal moment

Spoiler:

except maybe culminating the whole thing with giving up his alchemy and knowing he can rely on his friends

. But there are plenty of little things throughout the series that I mentioned in my previous post.

Actually a scene in one of the openings I think displays this quite perfectly: Ed and Al are standing alone and suddenly they are surrounded by more and more allies.

But I think just saying "to trust others" is simplifying it. But I will blame myself here not having the eloquence to explain what I mean. It's more or less at the beginning of the series Ed and Al believe they can solve all their problems alone with alchemy. It's actually in a sense a very arrogant way to look at things. But as the series goes on they start realizing alchemy is not going to solve all their problems. They start sharing their problems with others (no longer keeping everything just between them) and actually asking for help. Why did the good guys win in the end? Well besides Father's own arrogance I will say they won because it was truly a "team effort" in every sense of the word.

As for the series being about sacrifice well that I completely disagree with and I think that is more what the first series is about. I don't think Ed & Al sacrificed anything but instead gained a lot. They went through a painful lesson yes but I can't say they didn't get anything out of it.

And in fact Ed & Al themselves felt they they were given so much that at the end of the series they want to give back to:

Spoiler:

visiting every single person that helped them in the end.

And also wanting to overturn the laws of equivalent exchange to

Spoiler:

give 2 for 1

Sacrifice to me has negative connotations. In fact the two times it was brought up

Spoiler:

1) When Ed is fighting Scar he thinks of sacrificing himself for Al.
2) Roy and Riza are thinking of sacrificing themselves (they will become war criminals) for what happened in Ishval

This is met with a negative response

Spoiler:

1) Al lectures Ed about not giving up his life when there is so much he can accomplish like saving a girl like Nina

2) Ed borrows money from Roy saying he will only give it back to him after he accomplishes his goals. Essentially saying I am not going to let you sacrifice yourself because there is more good you can do alive

edit: And I have nothing against a darker story: I actually love Grave of the Fireflies, Rurouni Kenshin: Trust & Betrayal & Now and Then Here and There.

But I will stick by what I say that a darker & more tragic story is not anymore deep or original than a lighter more hopeful story.