AnimeSuki Forums

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

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Current Series > Fate/ Series

Notices

View Poll Results: Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Rating
Perfect 10 87 51.18%
9 out of 10 : Excellent 53 31.18%
8 out of 10 : Very Good 14 8.24%
7 out of 10 : Good 7 4.12%
6 out of 10 : Average 3 1.76%
5 out of 10 : Below Average 3 1.76%
4 out of 10 : Poor 1 0.59%
3 out of 10 : Bad 0 0%
2 out of 10 : Very Bad 0 0%
1 out of 10 : Painful 2 1.18%
Voters: 170. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-12-11, 11:42   Link #161
g_silver
Baka Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Universe!!!....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
That's more or less correct: A King represents the one who shall accept and take responsibility for all burden of their nation, according to Arturia.
Moreso when the main task is to assure the welfare of all of her people.
Therefore, even her knights, soldiers etc are basically counted in such mindset, leading to no one but herself to assure her country prosperity.
Owww... this was a bit too extreme. I see why Rider strongly disapprove Saber right away.
Thanks for explaining
g_silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:05   Link #162
Kieli
Maki Maki Shoujo
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Blue Ridge Mountain High
I nodded my head in total assent with Rider's lecture to Saber. It seemed to me that Saber's ideals and her fanatical adherence to them show the crucial difference between herself and the rest of the heroes: her gender. It is quite a female tendency to feel like we must give up everything in pursuit of providing for those we care about, love or are responsible for, even when those ideals are impractical and unattainable.

She is also showing her lack of maturity as a King; as Inskandar points out, she was so bent on sacrificing herself for her people, she never got the chance to truly rule and know them. In the end, though, it seemed like all she really heard was criticism and not the wisdom he had to impart. It was tough love but I think he felt he had no choice but to try to force her to grow up so that a) he would have a worthy adversary and b) she would begin to have more respect and confidence for herself as King and what mark she would leave upon the world.
__________________
"We pretend to be civilised but only blood sacrifice quiets the murderer within."
--Sappho, from Erica Jong's Sappho's Leap

Last edited by Kieli; 2011-12-11 at 12:06. Reason: typos abound
Kieli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:19   Link #163
Haak
Forever Alone...
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
I don't know. I thought Saber had it right when she said a King serves his people. Surely there are successful examples of that in history? Even if it led her to become cold to her subjects and eventually lead to her ruin, one could argue that she simply went about it the wrong way. Even if there aren't successful examples, it didn't seem as if Rider was arguing her concept of a King was wrong from a practical standpoint, but rather from a moral standpoint, and I just found that bizarre.

I can accept that a King is meant to be a tyrrant, but would argue that Kings are outdated in the modern world (of course Saber wouldn't argue that, but I couldn't help but feel that Rider's assertion that Kings are all tyrants was portrayed as a good thing). Then again, why is what we would consider to be a war criminal in this day and age called a "Hero" by the Akasha? I suppose that's the thing about the Nasuverse: the magical system itself follows some pretty warped philosophy.
__________________
Haak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:00   Link #164
Fenrir_valindri
Miria's #1 Disciple
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
I think they both made good points, but Saber is playing too hard into martyring herself for her kingdom. She isn't wrong in wanting to serve her people, but she takes it to the extreme and shoulders all the burden and responsibility herself.

Hopefully she will eventually solidify her own feelings on the matter before facing Rider again in combat, whether it be physical or verbal..
As it stands, her conviction has been visibly shaken, and Rider has all the confidence in the world.
__________________
http://i.imgur.com/rZD75r9.jpg
Fenrir_valindri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:01   Link #165
Kieli
Maki Maki Shoujo
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Blue Ridge Mountain High
I can see where one could draw that conclusion from Rider's tyrant comment. I guess it would all depend on how history, or the King's people, define tyranny. If a King weren't ambitious and a bit self-serving to some extent, his/her people's existence would consist of constantly being on the defensive, without much growth or impact on the world at large (though that could be argued against by the existence of such neutral countries as Spain and Switzerland, though I think that neutrality came a huge personal cost for them as countries. They weren't always neutral that is just how they ended up. However, that is just my personal observation.) I also think he was explaining that every ruler has some degree of selfishness and desire for personal gain. It is unnatural and impossible to think otherwise (and every single King in history can bear that out, from Kings Solomon and David on down). Human nature, being what it is, shows that a so-called pure saint really does not exist (I guess that would also depend on one's own view of religious "but feel that Rider's assertion that Kings are all tyrants was portrayed as a good thing).

Your comment about the heroes of old possibly being war criminals by today's standards is an interesting one and I would argue that major changes in world view, religous beliefs (or even lack thereof), ethics, morality, etc have shifted how the two are defined. In addition, the eventual outcomes of their actions have a lot to do with it, I imagine. We could go on for days with examples. IMHO, Rider was forcing Saber to admit that holding fast to inflexible (and ultimately unsustainable) ideals as a leader doesn't necessarily make her a superior King. It's a lot more complicated than her, in my opinion, overly simplistic view. She offered no strong rebuttal to his arguments other than fantastical idealism, no proof that her goals were attainable because she never lived long enough to even put one of them into practice. Arthur even lost some respect and loyalty among his most loyal of knights due to this lack of foresight, flexibility and inability to recognize her own human weaknesses. Rider was giving her a wake up call: either grow up or get out of the way.
__________________
"We pretend to be civilised but only blood sacrifice quiets the murderer within."
--Sappho, from Erica Jong's Sappho's Leap
Kieli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:17   Link #166
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieli View Post
She offered no strong rebuttal to his arguments other than fantastical idealism, no proof that her goals were attainable because she never lived long enough to even put one of them into practice.
How long should she have been given? Everything we've seen indicates that the legend of Arthur is accurate outside of gender. Given that, it's safe to assume that Saber lived until her 50s or 60s. That says to me that her goals would never have been attainable.

Personally, I don't think either is entirely right, though Rider is closer to right. Even though he says in this episode that to be a king is to be a tyrant, it's been clearly shown in the earlier episodes that he was anything but a tyrant. So his definition of a tyrant and the modern definition of one seem to differ.
GDB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:04   Link #167
mAc Chaos
King of Heroes
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
Iskander advanced a non-sequitur of the form to rule effectively one must be the most amoral and self-serving. Why this example naturally supersedes a just rule of equivalent power and prowess in battle and politics is not given explanation. This distinction between power and the will that directs the same for a kingdom's stability and direction is not accounted for in Iskander's rationale.

moreover, for the benefit of clarity, the supposed contrast to Saber's position was presented with certain misrepresentation to the histories involved. Saber had both the power and ideals to serve Camelot, it was betrayal which (as I understand) led to Camelot's downfall. Thus for serving as a point of contrast, whilst neither ideology can safeguard the particular challenge of betrayal, their influence on the likelihood of same becoming a source of disruption to both rulership and its dominion underscores what makes for tenable differences between the ideologies.
Well, I think the show would argue that it was her idealist ruling that led to the betrayal.
mAc Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:41   Link #168
Xagzan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
How long should she have been given? Everything we've seen indicates that the legend of Arthur is accurate outside of gender. Given that, it's safe to assume that Saber lived until her 50s or 60s. That says to me that her goals would never have been attainable.

Personally, I don't think either is entirely right, though Rider is closer to right. Even though he says in this episode that to be a king is to be a tyrant, it's been clearly shown in the earlier episodes that he was anything but a tyrant. So his definition of a tyrant and the modern definition of one seem to differ.
Well, frankly Alexander did have a bit of a tyrannical streak, in the modern sense of the word. In fact, watching this episode I kept thinking, "Hey, Alex, you sure you should be drinking so much? You don't exactly have a good history with alcohol"

But really, I'm curious if Alexander recognized the pejorative connotations in Saber's use of the word tyrant. Because he comes from a world where the word didn't necessarily carry that meaning, and was often simply a term for a type of ruler of a polis. So when Alexander replied something like "Just so" to Saber, did he have her use of the word in mind, or his? It's an interesting question I think, and if he had his in mind, then it would be more palatable to us I'm sure why he emphasized it as not a horrible thing to be.

Although, Alexander was tutored by Aristotle, who wasn't the biggest fan of tyrants himself. So that just makes things even more complex here.

Very interesting episode, anyway.
Xagzan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:44   Link #169
Vena
Carpe Diem
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: ||At the edge of finality.||
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edict View Post
Iskander advanced a non-sequitur of the form to rule effectively one must be the most amoral and self-serving. Why this example naturally supersedes a just rule of equivalent power and prowess in battle and politics is not given explanation. This distinction between power and the will that directs the same for a kingdom's stability and direction is not accounted for in Iskander's rationale.

moreover, for the benefit of clarity, the supposed contrast to Saber's position was presented with certain misrepresentation to the histories involved. Saber had both the power and ideals to serve Camelot, it was betrayal which (as I understand) led to Camelot's downfall. Thus for serving as a point of contrast, whilst neither ideology can safeguard the particular challenge of betrayal, their influence on the likelihood of same becoming a source of disruption to both rulership and its dominion underscores what makes for tenable differences between the ideologies.
The questions raised and the answers provided by the kings in this episode are deep philosophical ones. It is a simple question, "What does it take be a great king?", but the answer isn't so clear cut or simple. The issue Iskander raises against Saber is a perfectly valid one: a country cannot run on ideals. It needs a king who can lead, who can be followed, and who can be admired (such that the subjects of the king follow in his image and aspire to be him); this requires that the king be the epitome of humanity. This requires not only virtue (which Saber has in excess to a fault) but also vice, otherwise you are not a human with whom the vast majority can identify. This ties heavily into Arthur's mythos because from origin to company to death, he was not *normal* but a product of fate and magic.

You can build a nation and a philosophy on ideals, you cannot run it strictly by only that. A king needs self interest as much as he needs flexibility like a reed in the face of hurricane winds. Therein, as Iskander said, you need a king who also thinks of and for himself and not only his subjects/nation. If not the latter, then you are an immobile figure more akin to a saint/monk dedicated to a steadfast ideal, such qualities would not be becoming of a king and would only lead to ruin for a nation. A king rules over a nation, he supports and leads the nation as the nation supports him in turn by being strong, productive, and great under their king. This is a give and go, as the nation changes to the will of the king, but the king's will must also change to suit the nation for the best interest of both, and in times of strife the king must rely on the support of his subjects as the subjects rely on the leadership of the king. If a king expects nothing from his nation or compatriots, taking the burden all upon himself to solve all problems, then he has no subjects... at which point, is he a king of the people? Or just a king of the title?
__________________
Transcend Eternity
Vena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 15:09   Link #170
Haak
Forever Alone...
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 23
I guess Alexander didn't actually pay much attention to his teacher Aristotle (or perhaps he did and just didn't agree)...

[EDIT]

Oh damn, Xagzan beat me to the punch...
__________________
Haak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 15:27   Link #171
Triple_R
Center Attraction
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 33
Send a message via AIM to Triple_R
That was an excellent episode.

The debate between Rider and Saber was indeed very compelling, and I felt that both sides made good points. Ultimately, though, I actually think that Rider is closer to the truth than Saber is (which is a bit surprising as Saber's moral beliefs are, in general, ones that I greatly admire).

A King is not the same as a Hero, and I think this is where Saber is a bit off-base. It's fitting that Saber is the King of Knights, because her philosophy on what a King should be is actually ideal for a Knight, or a nation's top soldiers/military leaders. In other words, Saber's philosophy would be something of an ideal for a Lancelot to hold to, but not really an Arthur. The finest knights, soldiers, and military leaders are indeed ones who put service to their country (and its people) first, and will put life on the line to defend it.

But a King is something a bit different from that. A King (or a Queen) really does need to be a symbol of hope and optimism for his/her people. A King will inevitably be envied, and so it's ideal if he represents a hearty and joyous way of life that his people can hope to emulate as much as their means allow. That's not to say that he should be greedy to the point that he undermines his own people's prosperity. Of course not. But it does mean that his personal prosperity is of some importance, as the King should ideally be there for his people and show them what prosperity really is.

Saber's self-sacrificial stance is highly admirable in a Knight, in a Servant of the Crown, but if a King dies and/or is always separate from his people that simply leaves a power vacuum and often a demoralized people.

On the whole, the ideal King would probably lie somewhere between Rider's ideals and Saber's, but I do think that Rider captures an essence to the role of the King that has eluded Saber thus far. Of course, as Haak mentioned, one can argue that this is precisely why royalty is increasingly obsolete, and/or reduced to mere figureheads, in modern times. The concept of the King does not mix easily with egalitarian philosophies, and it is those that have become increasingly popular in recent times.

And even with all of this said, it's not hard to see why Gilgamesh falls for Saber given her words here. She has made herself a wondrous novelty to him: the sincerely self-sacrificial King, fervent holder of altruistic ideals. What makes Saber somewhat ill-fitting as a King is nonetheless the same thing that makes her a compelling and charming Hero, at least in some ways.


Now, Rider's Noble Phantasm was indeed epic and awesomely fun to behold. It made for the perfect climax for the episode, and I'm glad this episode wasn't cut in two as such. However, in reading through this thread, there were key details left out that I really think shouldn't have been, which is why I can't rate this 10/10.

So what I do rate this episode is 9/10. Personally, I didn't see any real problems with the animation here. It wasn't mind-blowingly great or anything, but it served the purposes of the episode well I felt.
__________________

Last edited by Triple_R; 2011-12-11 at 18:41.
Triple_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 15:53   Link #172
Alaya
Counter Force
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieli View Post
I can see where one could draw that conclusion from Rider's tyrant comment. I guess it would all depend on how history, or the King's people, define tyranny. If a King weren't ambitious and a bit self-serving to some extent, his/her people's existence would consist of constantly being on the defensive, without much growth or impact on the world at large (though that could be argued against by the existence of such neutral countries as Spain and Switzerland, though I think that neutrality came a huge personal cost for them as countries. They weren't always neutral that is just how they ended up. However, that is just my personal observation.) I also think he was explaining that every ruler has some degree of selfishness and desire for personal gain. It is unnatural and impossible to think otherwise (and every single King in history can bear that out, from Kings Solomon and David on down). Human nature, being what it is, shows that a so-called pure saint really does not exist (I guess that would also depend on one's own view of religious "but feel that Rider's assertion that Kings are all tyrants was portrayed as a good thing).
Switzerland could remain neutral in the past because their army acted as mercenaries. So the price they paid for neutrality was their own countrymen fighting each other for other countries in wars that didn't relate to them.
__________________
Fate/Zero: This was the tale of a man who, more than anyone else, believed in his ideals, and was driven to despair by them.

Madoka: This was the tale of magical girls whose wishes are pure and by them are driven to despair.
Alaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 16:17   Link #173
Nerroth
Alea iacta est.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Maybe if you mean the pure Britons. But those (the Welsh) were a minority. Genetic testing indicates most British have Briton ancestry, so more likely (as is often the case in early medieval Europe) her people were absorbed and intermingled rather than killed. Besides, the suppression was mostly done by Normans, not her enemies the Anglo-Saxons. Too bad Ethelfrith the Anglo-Saxon king isn't a hero, cuz he'd actually be a representative of those enemies Saber keeps referring to.
And of course, the Romano-British culture itself didn't just spring out of the ground; it was indelibly stamped by the consequences of the Roman invasion and centuries-long occupation.

(I imagine a Servant Boudica might have had a very different idea on what "Britain" should be like compared to Arturia.)

Actually, I wonder if Saber's "Britain" is tied more to the term the way the Romans would have seen it (i.e. referring to the province/s within Roman-occupied Brtiannia) as opposed to the modern use of Britain as the name of the entire island. (The latter term would also include Caledonia/Pictland/what-is-now-Scotland, which Rome was never able to fully subdue the way it had the southern two-thirds of the island.)
__________________
Nerroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 16:38   Link #174
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerroth View Post
And of course, the Romano-British culture itself didn't just spring out of the ground; it was indelibly stamped by the consequences of the Roman invasion and centuries-long occupation.

(I imagine a Servant Boudica might have had a very different idea on what "Britain" should be like compared to Arturia.)

Actually, I wonder if Saber's "Britain" is tied more to the term the way the Romans would have seen it (i.e. referring to the province/s within Roman-occupied Brtiannia) as opposed to the modern use of Britain as the name of the entire island. (The latter term would also include Caledonia/Pictland/what-is-now-Scotland, which Rome was never able to fully subdue the way it had the southern two-thirds of the island.)
Never thought of servant Boudica. See, no need for genderswapping, there were plenty of badass females in history already (though I still like the Saber character, don't get me wrong ).

I think Saber's Britain depends on where the mythical Arthur actually reigned in Britain. I'm not particularly familiar with Arthurian mythos but if it's the south of Britain then certainly Romano-Briton culture, closer to Hadrian's Wall the less the Roman influence. Also if she had defeated the Anglo-Saxons she still had the Picts and the incoming Irish Scotti that would become the Scots, who were pirates and raiders originally plundering her kingdom.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 16:48   Link #175
com_gwp
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Rider was so fucking boss.

And he summed up in an episode what took shirou the ENTIRE fate route to realise.
com_gwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 17:06   Link #176
Morisato
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroz View Post
A role model does not necessarily mean a good leader.

Saber is a saint, not a king.

I just wonder if she's able to let that unreasonable ideal go in FSN...
Kinda like Joan of Arc...
Morisato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 17:07   Link #177
Calca
Expressionless
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Incognito
I showed part of this episode to my 7-year old cousin.

He grew chest hair afterwards.
Calca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 17:12   Link #178
Kagayaki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 24
It might seem like this week suffered from budget problems compared to last week, but I think it's more a matter of the staff's strengths and weaknesses as opposed to a difference of effort. The difference was less because they were trying harder last week, and more because the script was better suited towards their technical strengths.

Jumping over the cut scenes was only a minor part of the directorial problems of this episode. The bigger problem is that a lot of the shots were static, showing either the back of the speaking character, or a completely still shot with only their mouth animated. Saber was the only one who avoided this, particularly towards the end, but it felt like Gilgamesh and Rider were under-expressive at times in their gestures. Instead, the voice acting, which was good, had to get across the vast majority of the emotion in whatever they were saying. Often a shot would begin with a character in one facial expression, and the entire time the character was talking, they only moving part of their body would be their mouth.

When we look back across the episodes of this series, this seems to be a recurring pattern. They've been doing a great job with atmosphere, lighting, CG integration, and background art, and last episode had a lot of nice directorial flourishes (especially the use of montages and short shots) aimed at conveying what was going on in a time-efficient, aesthetically pleasing way. The city lights and the way the location was constantly changing really let them have fun with the colors and lighting. However, this episode was mostly in one place, and the characters were sitting down and talking. This series has never been great at making long, dialogue-heavy scenes come to life visually, so I'm not surprised by the performance here.
__________________
Kagayaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 17:19   Link #179
nightwyrm
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
One must wonder how the difference between their philosophy of kingship came about due to their different historical situations.

Saber spent her life defending her country from invaders. She was forced into the role of a protector. Austerity, setting priorities and sacrifice are hallmarks of a nation under constant siege. Vices and vanities were probably not something that she can afford.

Rider spent his life invading other countries. He always played the role of an aggressor. He could afford to live large because wealth was just next door to be taken. Living large was what motivated his followers to conquer more land to feed their appetite.
nightwyrm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 17:38   Link #180
Calca
Expressionless
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Incognito
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightwyrm View Post
One must wonder how the difference between their philosophy of kingship came about due to their different historical situations.

Saber spent her life defending her country from invaders. She was forced into the role of a protector. Austerity, setting priorities and sacrifice are hallmarks of a nation under constant siege. Vices and vanities were probably not something that she can afford.

Rider spent his life invading other countries. He always played the role of an aggressor. He could afford to live large because wealth was just next door to be taken. Living large was what motivated his followers to conquer more land to feed their appetite.
Basically Rider's people were willing to die for his cause and believed in Rider because he was able to motivate them into loving what he wanted.

Saber's people died for her because she sent them out on her own actions and what she believed to be right which is not necessarily what her people may have wanted thus shouldering her own ideals for herself.

The fact that Saber regrets the events that happened in her life and Rider embraces them kind of exemplifies the difference in who was a better king. Also shows that Rider's entire army was willing to follow him even after death. It is probably doubtful those who followed Saber felt the same.
Calca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10.


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