Madoka Magica - Movie 3 Spoilers and Speculations

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Kazu-kun

All the references and symbolism evoke the idea of a duality.

No, not necessarily. And even if some of them are about duality, I don't think that all of them are.

And if this ending was so hardcore about duality as you think it is, I would expect Madoka to have a greater presence in it overall, since her and her perspective represents one half of the duality. The ending spends a lot of time faffing around with other non-Homura/Madoka characters (especially Sayaka) when it ought to be focusing much more on Madoka if the ending is supposed to be all about Homura/Madoka duality. Madoka is also noticeably absent from the disturbing imagery at the end, which I find odd if your duality interpretation is correct.

I mean you seem to be talking about hardcore duality on the level of yin yang. Shouldn't the last bits of symbolism include both the yin and the yang if the ending overall is all about yin yang?

Finally, metaphor and symbolism and implied meaning are all fine and dandy, but I do care about what I'd call "the facts on the ground". In other words, I care about the actual factual situation facing the major characters at the end of the narrative, and what it means for them as individuals. It's good to have themes, but I care about more than just themes. I care about characters and what actually happens to them.

What does this ending mean for Homura personally, in a concrete way? What does this ending mean for Madoka? What does this ending mean for Kyouko, Mami, and Sayaka? What does this ending mean for the other named characters? What does this ending mean for its fictional universe as a whole?

The TV series ending was, on the whole, firmer on these questions than the Rebellion ending was, in my opinion. And that makes the TV series ending more closed-ended, at least to me.

I don't really see any other thematic interpretation for this ending.

What about NinjaRealist's interpretation? That has nothing to do with the duality that you're talking about.

You're not providing any alternative interpretation yourself though. I asked you what you think about the god/devil thing, about the Nietzsche references and such, and you didn't say anything.

There's a contrast between Madoka's personality and Homura's personality, and the God and Devil imagery symbolically reflects that contrast. It also reflects Akuma Homura's rebellion against Madokami (hence the very name of this movie).

The God and Devil imagery doesn't necessarily have to stand for any more than this.

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

Love is cruel, pointless, wasteful, and we would be better without it.

Are you talking about love in general, or just romantic love?

I can understand cynicism towards romantic love even if I don't fully share it. I certainly wouldn't deny that there's lots of potential downsides to it.

But love in general is definitely a good thing for the world. It's kind, helpful, and productive. It helps to make for stronger families and tighter/more reliable friendships. There's all sorts of helpful and productive things that people do that wouldn't be done (or at least not done as well) without love motivating people.

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

That, to me, was the whole point of Madoka Rebellion, that love is hurting the world. Madoka had largely succeeded in doing something truly positive, and what ruined all of her hopes and dreams?

Madoka succeeded, in large part, because of her love for the whole world.

In theory love is a beautiful thing, but I think the message of the movie is that this theory isn't borne out in reality.

The idea of Rebellion casting a skeptical eye on romantic love is in fact a very interesting idea to me. I have read a fair number of comments about how Gen struggles with romance. Gen being skeptical of the value of romantic love would help to explain that, and perhaps such skepticism is also the message of this ending.

[NinjaRealist]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Are you talking about love in general, or just romantic love?

I can understand cynicism towards romantic love even if I don't fully share it. I certainly wouldn't deny that there's lots of potential downsides to it.

But love in general is definitely a good thing for the world. It's kind, helpful, and productive. It helps to make for stronger families and tighter/more reliable friendships. There's all sorts of helpful and productive things that people do that wouldn't be done (or at least not done as well) without love motivating people.

Madoka succeeded, in large part, because of her love for the whole world.

The idea of Rebellion casting a skeptical eye on romantic love is in fact a very interesting idea to me. I have read a fair number of comments about how Gen struggles with romance. Gen being skeptical of the value of romantic love would help to explain that, and perhaps such skepticism is also the message of this ending.

Yes, I'm talking about romantic love, which can be another way of saying exclusionary love. This is opposed to the generalized love for everything that Madoka has. The issue with exclusive love is that, as depicted in the movie, if you only care about one person, you don't care what happens to the rest of the world.

This is indeed a past theme in Gurobuchi's work. Probably the best example of this is Saya no Uta. The whole visual novel basically revolves around a choice between romantic love and love of the world:

Spoiler for Saya no Uya:

Basically, you can choose to be with Saya and the whole world is transformed into, from the human perspective, a living hell.

Or you can choose to suffer alone and the world gets to remain as it is.

Shinbo too has dealt with this theme in anime he's directed. A great example is Soultaker. In Soultaker the protagonist is searching for his long-lost sister:

Spoiler for Soultaker:

In the end it's revealed that the sister is an alien bent on destroying the world and the protagonist, despite loving his sister, chooses to metaphorically kill her rather than allow the world to be destroyed

Another more obvious example is Cossette no Shozo. I don't think I even need to explain how this is a critique of romantic love. It's extremely obvious.

It should be noted that Urobuchi cites Shinbo, not himself, as the one who originally suggested a dark ending for Rebellion (although Urobuchi clearly embraced this ending):

Originally Posted by Gurobuchi's own words

I had a hard time deciding on the ending. Ending the story with Homura and Madoka being reunited wasn't really the best outcome. After all, the instant Homura encounters her, she'll be guided by the Law of Cycles, and disappear. Would that make her happy? It was also the director, Mr. Shinbo's opinion that the outcome of the TV series, "a human becoming a god" might be too heavy a fate for a girl in middle school to bear. Since that was the case, I decided to try to come up with a way to create a story in which Madoka could escape that outcome.

But I'd already ended this story once, so it was hard to figure out how to expand it. That was when Mr. Shinbo suggested, "How about a story with Homura confronting Madoka as an enemy?" I thought, if that's at all permissible, then I'd suddenly have all these options open to me, and that's how the current plot developed.

Source: https://wiki.puella-magi.net/Rebelli...8Screenplay.29

[Kazu-kun]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And if this ending was so hardcore about duality as you think it is, I would expect Madoka to have a greater presence in it overall, since her and her perspective represents one half of the duality.

Madoka got her say in the TV series. This was Homu's turn. The fact that we don't get an actual confrontation between them (like a discussion, a fight, whatever) goes in line with my understanding that the point is the conflict itself, not the resolution.

I mean you seem to be talking about hardcore duality on the level of yin yang. Shouldn't the last bits of symbolism include both the yin and the yang if the ending overall is all about yin yang?

Ying and yang don't represent a conflict of irreconcilables ideals and way of thinking. It has nothing to do with that actually.

Finally, metaphor and symbolism and implied meaning are all fine and dandy, but I do care about what I'd call "the facts on the ground".

That would be cool if the ending was such that "facts on the grounds" have the most relevance. But the ending of the movie is heavily referential and symbolic. You don't really get a lot of hard facts in this ending.

What does this ending mean for Homura personally, in a concrete way? What does this ending mean for Madoka? What does this ending mean for Kyouko, Mami, and Sayaka? What does this ending mean for the other named characters? What does this ending mean for its fictional universe as a whole?

It means that life goes on. There might be more conflict in the future. Actually, there will be, because life is always full of conflicts. It's all up to the viewer to imagine. The story doesn't have to go beyond this point. It could have, with some tweaking, and considering that Urobuchi's probably not on board anymore so they could take any direction they wanted, but it doesn't have to.

The TV series ending was, on the whole, firmer on these questions than the Rebellion ending was, in my opinion. And that makes the TV series ending more closed-ended, at least to me.

I argue that closed-ended is the wrong term, but it was more clear cut, less vague. There were a few more facts, less symbolism.

What about NinjaRealist's interpretation? That has nothing to do with the duality that you're talking about.

It's a tangential interpretation as far as I can see. Doesn't necessarily conflict with mine.

There's a contrast between Madoka's personality and Homura's personality, and the God and Devil imagery symbolically reflects that contrast. It also reflects Akuma Homura's rebellion against Madokami (hence the very name of this movie).

There is that, of course, but that's not all. With references to Milton and Nietzsche, the conflict between Duty and Desire, Nihilism vs Faith (or hope), the entire picture is a lot complex that it seems.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Kazu-kun

Madoka got her say in the TV series.

So did Homura! Homura pleaded passionately with Madoka during their final meeting in the TV series ending.

So going by your duality argument, it would be ideal if Madoka gets to have her say here in the Rebellion ending as well.

But in any event, I wasn't even thinking about Madoka "having her say", per se. I was just thinking about her having more screen presence, period. It's excessively low if Madoka is supposed to represent the other half of a "duality" with Homura, with that duality being the whole point of the Rebellion ending.

The fact that we don't get an actual confrontation between them (like a discussion, a fight, whatever) goes in line with my understanding that the point is the conflict itself, not the resolution.

Um... what? This strikes me as entirely backwards thinking.

What better way to emphasize the conflict itself than to have an actual confrontation? Confrontations and conflicts go hand-in-hand after all.

Ying and yang don't represent a conflict of irreconcilables ideals and way of thinking. It has nothing to do with that actually.

You specifically used the word "duality", with heavy emphasis on that word. Yin and yang definitely relates to the term "duality". If you don't believe me, just do a Google image search for "duality". Various versions of the Yin Yang symbol is one of the most common images that will come up.

That would be cool if the ending was such that "facts on the grounds" have the most relevance.

It's up to each individual viewer to determine what has the most relevance to him or her in what s/he watches.

You don't really get a lot of hard facts in this ending.

Which is a big part of the reason why I find it open-ended.

I argue that closed-ended is the wrong term, but it was more clear cut, less vague.

More clear cut, less vague translates into more closed-ended, in my opinion. Is it really that hard for you to see and accept why I would honestly consider the TV series ending more closed-ended than the Rebellion one?

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

It is depressing to think that a beautiful social construct like love might not match the reality of how love actually exists in reality, but I think it's more depressing to go through life hurting people because you're holding onto a construct that isn't capable of existing in the way that you've idealized it (this the general "you", I'm not directing this at you personally Solace).

I...think you're holding other people's regards for love in an overly narrow light. Love clearly exists outside of a social construct. It's a biological emotion that can be observed in our brain chemistry, if not fully understood. it's a thing people feel even if never raised as a part of modern society as we know it. It's something that is literally instinctual.

The social construct you're decrying here is something else, and a fairly recent phenomenon in human culture that didn't really exist prior to like...the 19th century, at earliest (since marriages and such weren't done for love until very recently).

Homucifer doesn't really challenge the concept of love as a beautiful concept or challenge the moral justice of romanticism or anything, in my personal opinion. It just calls into question Homura's own character and highlights the fuzzy line between her virtues and her faults. Where her love bleeds into obsession into mental illness, and what parts of her can be saved and what parts Madoka would have to destroy if she wishes to earn her freedom again.

That, to me, was the whole point of Madoka Rebellion, that love is hurting the world. Madoka had largely succeeded in doing something truly positive, and what ruined all of her hopes and dreams? Homura's love. At the end of the TV series Homura seemed to actually be progressing towards independence and happiness, but what caused her to regress? Her own love.

I could just as easily argue that Homura's regression isn't because of love, but her self-loathing and inferiority complex. She made her whole existence into being Madoka's protector to the point that she didn't even care if she would ever be friends with her again...and in the end she 'failed'...and had nothing left to do with herself. She was a broken Nutcracker unable of fulfilling it's only reason for existence.

She doesn't kidnap Madoka out of love, though that's how she justifies it to herself. She does it because Homura can't accept that she won't succeed at her task without denying Madoka her agency and freedom. Homura can't accept that Madoka doesn't need her.

And considering that, until we're shown why Sayaka/Madoka would take issue with it Homura's world is demonstrably better than the previous one, and that Homura's evil is mostly self-informed by her 0% Approval Rating gambit suicide plans due to self-loathing over her own actions...

I don't think the movie even tangentially supports your claim. I think you're projecting what you want, here.

[NinjaRealist]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I...think you're holding other people's regards for love in an overly narrow light. Love clearly exists outside of a social construct. It's a biological emotion that can be observed in our brain chemistry, if not fully understood. it's a thing people feel even if never raised as a part of modern society as we know it. It's something that is literally instinctual.

The social construct you're decrying here is something else, and a fairly recent phenomenon in human culture that didn't really exist prior to like...the 19th century, at earliest (since marriages and such weren't done for love until very recently).

Homucifer doesn't really challenge the concept of love as a beautiful concept or challenge the moral justice of romanticism or anything, in my personal opinion. It just calls into question Homura's own character and highlights the fuzzy line between her virtues and her faults. Where her love bleeds into obsession into mental illness, and what parts of her can be saved and what parts Madoka would have to destroy if she wishes to earn her freedom again.



I could just as easily argue that Homura's regression isn't because of love, but her self-loathing and inferiority complex. She made her whole existence into being Madoka's protector to the point that she didn't even care if she would ever be friends with her again...and in the end she 'failed'...and had nothing left to do with herself. She was a broken Nutcracker unable of fulfilling it's only reason for existence.

She doesn't kidnap Madoka out of love, though that's how she justifies it to herself. She does it because Homura can't accept that she won't succeed at her task without denying Madoka her agency and freedom. Homura can't accept that Madoka doesn't need her.

And considering that, until we're shown why Sayaka/Madoka would take issue with it Homura's world is demonstrably better than the previous one, and that Homura's evil is mostly self-informed by her 0% Approval Rating gambit suicide plans due to self-loathing over her own actions...

I don't think the movie even tangentially supports your claim. I think you're projecting what you want, here.

There is more than just tangential support for my theory. For me the key piece of evidence is the dialogue between Homura and Kyubey immediately after the big twist.

Spoiler:

Kyubey: What's happening? Homura Akemi, what are you meddling in? What have you changed?

Homucifer: (laughs briefly)

Kyubey: I don't believe this. Your curse-blackened soul gem should have vanished along with your soul. So why?

Homucifer: Because I finally remembered. All the times I repeated history, got hurt and suffered over and over, all of that was proof of my feelings for Madoka. So now, even pain is dear to me. It was not even curses that soiled my Soul Gem.

Kyubey: Then what did?

Homura: Something that you have no chance of understanding, Incubator.

In the bolded lines, it seems very probable that Homura is referring to love when she refers to a "something" that soiled her Soul Gem. She doesn't specifically use the word love but there are several clues.

Most important is her assertion that whatever soiled her soul gem was something that Kyubey has no chance of understanding. Given that Kyubey represents inhuman rationality, we can only assume that whatever "something" Homura is referring to must be so human and irrational that Kyubey simply can't understand it. There are lots of instinctively human and irrational feelings Homura could potentially be referring to here, but given the context of this line, situated immediately after a strong statement by Homura of her desire for Madoka, I think it's very likely that Homura is referring to love here.

It's also important that she says how it WASN'T curses that soiled her soul gem. What this line seems to imply is that whatever soiled Homura's soul gem wasn't malicious or hateful. So this line would seem to rule out any interpretation that Homura's actions were motivated by revenge or some similarly depraved/malicious motive. If you rule out all the malicious/depraved emotions/motivations that Homura could be referring to, what possibilities are left?

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY possible interpretation of this scene. But there is enough here that I don't think you can credibly say that there is only tangential evidence for the idea that Homura is motivated by romantic love. This is just one of many scenes that point to Homura having been motivated by love, but I do think this scene is probably the most important scene in the movie in terms of the theory that I've suggested.

Again, I don't think my interpretation of this scene is the only possibility, I just think it's too obvious of a possibility to be written-off as "tangential".

[Akito Kinomoto]

Well, she did say she was motivated by love, albeit it's not consensual.

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

In the bolded lines, it seems very probable that Homura is referring to love when she refers to a "something" that soiled her Soul Gem. She doesn't specifically use the word love but there are several clues.

Most important is her assertion that whatever soiled her soul gem was something that Kyubey has no chance of understanding. Given that Kyubey represents inhuman rationality, we can only assume that whatever "something" Homura is referring to must be so human and irrational that Kyubey simply can't understand it. There are lots of instinctively human and irrational feelings Homura could potentially be referring to here, but given the context of this line, situated immediately after a strong statement by Homura of her desire for Madoka, I think it's very likely that Homura is referring to love here.

It's also important that she says how it WASN'T curses that soiled her soul gem. What this line seems to imply is that whatever soiled Homura's soul gem wasn't malicious or hateful. So this line would seem to rule out any interpretation that Homura's actions were motivated by revenge or some similarly depraved/malicious motive. If you rule out all the malicious/depraved emotions/motivations that Homura could be referring to, what possibilities are left?

Well, uh...characters not knowing what truly motivates them is a running theme in Puella Magi. So color me not particularly swayed.

That being said, I'm not challenging the idea that Love is coloring her soul gem and that it's a major motivating force in what she did, but is it WHY she did it, or what gave her the idea? Is it what drives her to do it using the power of her love? That's what I'm calling into question, here.

As for what possibilities are left, Sayaka offered two. Devotion and Obsession, which even Homura strikes differently from her love concept. You also make a mistake in ruling out all 'malicious and hateful' emotions because....that's not what Grief is. It's Despair.

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY possible interpretation of this scene. But there is enough here that I don't think you can credibly say that there is only tangential evidence for the idea that Homura is motivated by romantic love. This is just one of many scenes that point to Homura having been motivated by love, but I do think this scene is probably the most important scene in the movie in terms of the theory that I've suggested.

It's evidence for the idea that Homura is motivated atleast in part by her obsessive love and that's what she herself believes, but Homura is not immune to her own self-biases, just like every other character.

And in the context of the whole movie, we're given this picture of Homura as a broken, trauma-striken girl who can't FUNCTION anymore outside of this task. She's too set in her ways from the anime and she can't adjust without having an emotional breakdown. She regards Madoka's ascension as a failure and regards the only value to her own existence being Madoka's safety, and she contracted not just because she cared about Madoka, but because she has a self-loathing complex that deems herself not worth saving or sacrificing for.

It's not love that destroyed Homura's mindset. It's something much deeper and more insidious that rotted at her mind before Madoka met her, and eats at her even in the post-credits teaser of Rebellion. It is probably the one thing that defines her even more absolutely than Madoka. Madoka didn't really address this properly in Rebellion (how could she?). She only sort of aggravated the problem due to not understanding it, and gave Homura the idea that this is what Madoka would truly be happy with, even if the issue has to be forced.

Homura's love for Madoka is beautiful, and caused something beautiful to happen. However, that miracle was undermined by Homura's inability to love herself and find new purpose.

Sayaka's love for Kyousuke was beautiful, and caused a miracle to happen. However, Sayaka was destroyed by her inability to be honest with herself and accept moral grays in her own worldview. She held herself by an impossible, self-denying standard and buckled under the weight.

Junko and Tomohisa Kaname have a beautiful love that gave them two miracles. No problems here.

Love is demonstrably NOT the issue here, and in so doing to pursue this interpretation you are doing Homura's character arc a disservice.

[LightDragonman]

So what say you guys on this rather critical look at Rebellion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEldbOjnn8s

[Solace]

Originally Posted by LightDragonman

So what say you guys on this rather critical look at Rebellion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEldbOjnn8s

It's not really touching on anything we haven't already discussed to death here.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Homura's love for Madoka is beautiful, and caused something beautiful to happen. However, that miracle was undermined by Homura's inability to love herself and find new purpose.

Sayaka's love for Kyousuke was beautiful, and caused a miracle to happen. However, Sayaka was destroyed by her inability to be honest with herself and accept moral grays in her own worldview. She held herself by an impossible, self-denying standard and buckled under the weight.

I'm not sure if it can truly be divided that cleanly and neatly. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

An an intellectual level, sure, it's not hard to conceive of ways where Homura's romantic love for Madoka, and Sayaka's romantic love for Kyousuke, could be maintained without causing problems. Where different elements could be brought into play to mitigate against those problems rising.

But does romantic love itself make it difficult to bring those different elements into play? In other words, does it make the more balanced approach you're referring to harder to achieve at an emotional level?

The relationship aspects of Homura's story and Sayaka's story certainly aren't that uncommon in real life. Sayaka's in particular is quite common - How many people have endured heartbreak and some degree of personal devastation due to unrequited love and seeing the person they feel romantic love for end up with another person?

One of the main reasons I like Sayaka a lot is that her story is an "everyman" sort of story, told with boldness and richness and stark honesty. And I think that too much of Sayaka's decline tends to get attributed to strictly moral or philosophical matters. No, the main reason Sayaka declined was simple old-fashioned heartbreak. Sayaka's story is very much a story about the dangers inherent in romantic love. One thing that I think reinforces that is how final timeline Octavia creates a witch's barrier totally rooted in Kyousuke, and even featuring a facsimile of him as a familiar. Another thing is how Timeline 3 Octavia has Hitomi familiars. If this was more about morality than romantic love, then Mami and Kyouko familiars playing a sort of angel/demon duality role would have been more fitting for Octavia, in my view.

And I think the message of Episode 12 was that Sayaka sort of unpacked everything pertaining to her feelings for Kyousuke, and learned that at the root of it all, was a pure love for his music. Not him, per se, but his music. That, I think, was why Episode 12 Sayaka was able to come to terms with everything. So in the end her wish actually did represent what she truly wanted more than anything else - for his music to rise once more. Sayaka had simply allowed a halo effect of sorts to occur where because she loved his music she thought she must be in love with him, and be with him. No, as long as his music soared high once more, that was enough. It was actually by stripping romance from her love of Kyousuke's music that Sayaka gained a sense of acceptance and perhaps even accomplishment, in the end.


Now, as for Homura, she shows how romantic love can easily turn to an outright obsession where you'll make any sacrifice or exchange necessary to have the one you love. Romantic love doesn't have to lead to obsession, of course, but it can. Gen generally isn't about writing ideal outcomes. If anything, it's the opposite. Gen writes about the dangers inherent in seemingly good things that we may not see at first. Things that people might be inclined to see as mostly or even entirely positive. Things like a society that puts greater emphasis on mental health and fighting crime (Psycho-Pass), and romantic love (Madoka Magica?).

Junko and Tomohisa Kaname are good reminders that romantic love can sometimes turn out perfectly fine. Though even in their case an argument could be made that they've made it subordinate to family love. Junko and Tomohisa come across to me as parents who put their children first. So perhaps that's part and parcel of PMMM's stance on romantic love - It can work out, but only if it becomes subordinate to something more stable and less fraught by the twists and turns and sudden passions in one's day-to-day living.

Sayaka and Homura shows what can happen when romantic love becomes the core of one's sense of self. Is that an intentional theme on Gen's part? It's certainly possible, given how he's approached romance in his other works. But even if it's not intentional, it strikes me as one of the more reasonable and supportable thematic takes on PMMM.


So I think NinjaRealist's take is one worth seriously considering. You don't have to take it so far as to condemn romantic love entirely. You could take it as PMMM showing that romantic love is very much like a double-edged sword - Handle with care, and you might not want to get too attached to that sword.

[NinjaRealist]

@AuraTwilight

Triple R basically made all of the points that I would have responded to you with and he's a more eloquent writer than myself. No disrespect but I have a very physical job and am fighting a case of tennis elbow right now so please forgive me for not continuing the discussion further.

[AuraTwilight]

That's alright. The only point I wanted to make is that an alternate interpretation is entirely viable, and someone can disagree with your interpretation without being a romantic in denial or offended by the view.

[woxx]

Originally Posted by LightDragonman

So what say you guys on this rather critical look at Rebellion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEldbOjnn8s

http://myanimelist.net/profile/KevinNyaa
Birthday June 28, 1996

I would say he's great critic

[AuraTwilight]

Hey, let's not be assholes? Somone's age has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their ideas.

Especially when it comes to critically evaluating a cartoon.

[woxx]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Hey, let's not be assholes? Somone's age has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their ideas.

Especially when it comes to critically evaluating a cartoon.

As it was posted here, I just told my opinion. I would never care about some kid's review, who just finished school or maybe even not. Actually it even makes me laugh, don't know why. Probably because I knew some really good anime reviewer 60+ years old, seems like he has died already.

[AuraTwilight]

That doesn't change the fact that you're condescending to and judging someone based on when they were born. To dismiss someone's ideas and words based on things about the person rather than the actual content of their character or the legitimacy of their argument is pretty much the hallmark of the ignorant and the cowardly.

You're free to give your opinion on the person's review, and if you feel it's beneath you, you could just not respond. But just posting someone's personal information and then mocking them over it makes you a jerk.

Add your quite common trend over the past 100 or so pages, you have a tendency of responding to arguments by attacking other poster's character, calling them ignorant or not knowing anything about writing or movies or accusing them of not even liking Madoka Magica.

You realize this violates forum rules for user conduct, right?

[woxx]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Add your quite common trend over the past 100 or so pages, you have a tendency of responding to arguments by attacking other poster's character, calling them ignorant or not knowing anything about writing or movies or accusing them of not even liking Madoka Magica.

You realize this violates forum rules for user conduct, right?

Some people(including you) started to complain about "plot holes" and "bad writing" in this thread BEFORE even first camrip was released and without any chance to watch it. If it's not ignorance than what
There is also an ignore function and you can use it.

[AuraTwilight]

I can't speak for anyone else but I had seen the movie already by the time I started speaking in the thread about it.

I like...spend a good chunk of my year in Japan. Y'know.

[Kazu-kun]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

So did Homura! Homura pleaded passionately with Madoka during their final meeting in the TV series ending.

So going by your duality argument, it would be ideal if Madoka gets to have her say here in the Rebellion ending as well.

But in any event, I wasn't even thinking about Madoka "having her say", per se. I was just thinking about her having more screen presence, period. It's excessively low if Madoka is supposed to represent the other half of a "duality" with Homura, with that duality being the whole point of the Rebellion ending.

I fail to see why Madoka would need more screetime for this to work. The last few scenes alone are more than enough to present the idea. Besides the movie is rife with symbolism and references building up to it.

What better way to emphasize the conflict itself than to have an actual confrontation? Confrontations and conflicts go hand-in-hand after all.

What's the point of an actual confrontation if the conflict doesn't really have an easy answer? The point, in my opinion, is to set this up and let the audience find their own answers. Any resolution the staff forced on us would seem cheap except maybe a hegelian one (I think I already said that before). But you'd need a totally different approach of directing and writing to make that work. Kenji Nakamura and Michiko Yokote perhaps? Rie Matsumoto could work too. Although, I'd love to see a Madoka series or movie directed by Tsutomu Mizushima. lol

You specifically used the word "duality", with heavy emphasis on that word. Yin and yang definitely relates to the term "duality".

I already posted about this in my previous post.

Which is a big part of the reason why I find it open-ended.

Opened-ended just means something else.

More clear cut, less vague translates into more closed-ended, in my opinion. Is it really that hard for you to see and accept why I would honestly consider the TV series ending more closed-ended than the Rebellion one?

To see? Yeah, I really don't see it. To accept? That's irrelevant. You're free to think whatever you want.