AnimeSuki Forums

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

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-11-08, 19:58   Link #2941
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
Battler is the only person left on the island and Beatrice killed him so that implies that Beatrice is not a person.
That red is... one of the things that I think was just done for effect and won't ever be answered, actually.

"Beatrice is a landslide" is still the stupidest theory I've ever heard... not that lye is any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
There's no confirmation either way, but in the anime it's pretty clear that Battler is not there.
How is Bern talking to the readers/viewers? That makes no sense in-story. Lambda talks to the screen in Ep2 as well, but it's clear there that she's talking to Battler.

Again, where were you going with this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
It's possible that he visited some 1998 worlds but we were never shown this...
Actually, I watched the translated video of that scene on YouTube... there's a still frame that flashes by with Sakutaro and the Stakes, so yes, he did visit 1998.

But that's not my point. Are you suggesting that we discredit the 1998 world entirely?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
I guess you can argue that she was talking about the sin not being between meta-Battler and meta-Beatrice but that makes it kind of pointless in my opinion.
Battler 1: Asumu's son
Battler 2: Our Battler, the Meta-Battler, Unknown's son

Beatrice 1: Kinzo's Beatrice, probably looked like Virgilia, supposedly died before 1952
Beatrice 2: The Beatrice who lived in Kuwadorian, died in 1967
Beatrice 3: The Beatrice currently on Rokkenjima

And heck, why not:

Beatrice 4: Meta-Beatrice, who may be a combination of the three Beatrices above, also might be a natural disaster of some kind

Which Battler and Beatrice is the sin not between again? Red truth should NEVER be taken at face value, and I think at that point she was trying to obfuscate matters...
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 20:13   Link #2942
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Paranoia is setting in again on the red.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 20:21   Link #2943
Kamar
Author Wannabe
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I've always just figured the loophole there is that it wasn't Beatrice he sinned against, but whoever is acting as Beatrice.
Kamar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 20:36   Link #2944
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
That red is... one of the things that I think was just done for effect and won't ever be answered, actually.

"Beatrice is a landslide" is still the stupidest theory I've ever heard... not that lye is any better.
Many people have tried to come up with theories to explain this. Are you saying it will never be answered?

There's got to be an answer that involves "Beatrice" being something that can destroy corpses and kill Battler. But whatever it is it can be survived since Eva did in episode 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
How is Bern talking to the readers/viewers? That makes no sense in-story. Lambda talks to the screen in Ep2 as well, but it's clear there that she's talking to Battler.

Again, where were you going with this?
Why do all the meta-world scenes show Battler when they are talking to Battler but not those scenes? I think there is a larger reason for this other than "they just didn't show his sprite".

Where am I going with this? What rule says I have to write everything related to the post I'm replying to? I think rogerpepitone has good theories and I just wanted to know what he thought. If you don't like it then don't reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Actually, I watched the translated video of that scene on YouTube... there's a still frame that flashes by with Sakutaro and the Stakes, so yes, he did visit 1998.

But that's not my point. Are you suggesting that we discredit the 1998 world entirely?
I must have missed that screen. That's really strange since Beatrice never showed him that world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Battler 1: Asumu's son
Battler 2: Our Battler, the Meta-Battler, Unknown's son

Beatrice 1: Kinzo's Beatrice, probably looked like Virgilia, supposedly died before 1952
Beatrice 2: The Beatrice who lived in Kuwadorian, died in 1967
Beatrice 3: The Beatrice currently on Rokkenjima

And heck, why not:

Beatrice 4: Meta-Beatrice, who may be a combination of the three Beatrices above, also might be a natural disaster of some kind

Which Battler and Beatrice is the sin not between again? Red truth should NEVER be taken at face value, and I think at that point she was trying to obfuscate matters...
I see your point. The line where she says the sin is not between Beatrice and Battler is meaningless since she could be referring to a number of different Battlers and Beatrices. That really helps us solve the mystery.

My guess is that it refers to Battler on the game board and the human Beatrice when she was alive. If that's the case then the sin could be between Battler and someone who is pretending to be Beatrice.

So rogerpepitone's theory on Shannon works even if she is also pretending to be Beatrice. That's what you are trying to say right?
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 20:45   Link #2945
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
Battler is the only person left on the island and Beatrice killed him so that implies that Beatrice is not a person.
I wouldn't be so sure, I think there are still some paths opened.

For example the usual "Trap X" theory might explain this trick. But it could be something even more convoluted. There are many ways to interpret the word "kill", some of the accepted definitions include causing the death of someone even if indirectly.

For example if you know there is some danger and you don't warn someone of that danger, you might be considered a murderer. Even worse if you told the person in question to go to that danger. In "and then there were none" there is a similar case described.

So now let's imagine that the natural catastrophe is true, and let's imagine that Beatrice knows it is bound to happen. The red truth could be valid in that she knew that by saying nothing everyone would die, and by not saying anything she "Killed" them all.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:11   Link #2946
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
I doubt Battler saw any new 1998 worlds in EP5, but we know that he did see what we saw of 1998 in EP4. As Ange was disintegrating, she apparently passed her memories of that 1998 world on to Battler. So it's possible to explain away all the 1998 scenes as "something Battler thinks he saw through Ange's memories".

This means it's possible they were all fake, just a ploy by Beato, Bern, or Lambda. But even if they are real, there's no guarantee that they come from post-EP3.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:31   Link #2947
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Geekodot's theory got me thinking about the first twilight of Episode 3 again. TL;DR version: at least one servant didn't die until after 6:25am, and the chain was only supposed to have five rooms.

Spoiler for Chain construction and time of death:

Spoiler for Who burned Kinzo, and oddities:
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:34   Link #2948
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
But even if they are real, there's no guarantee that they come from post-EP3.
Again, I really think this is overthinking the issue.

If we're being misled... WHY are we being misled? What would the point be?

Furthermore... there were only three games up until that point. Only one of which Eva survived. So...

Yes, I know, kakera, but I don't buy that there are a multitude of games going on in separate universes at the same time. It just seems kinda... counter-intuitive to what we've been shown, you know?

The "hundreds of possibilities" thing worked in Higurashi because of the sheer number of times the game had gone on... but with the way Umineko numbers its games, I'm pretty sure there only have been 5 up to this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
Why do all the meta-world scenes show Battler when they are talking to Battler but not those scenes? I think there is a larger reason for this other than "they just didn't show his sprite".
No, please, go on. I want to hear this. What larger reason?

Really, the only person they can be talking to is Battler. Who says everything has to have a larger purpose?
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:50   Link #2949
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
The "hundreds of possibilities" thing worked in Higurashi because of the sheer number of times the game had gone on... but with the way Umineko numbers its games, I'm pretty sure there only have been 5 up to this point.
I personally don't think "kakera" and "games" are the same thing. Beatrice creates games and numbers them with a precise order. However Bernkastel mentions the existence of many different kakera. Bernkastel do not create kakera which means they already exist. The existence of kakera unrelated to Beatrice's games is confirmed in the Ep4 secret tea party.

Also in Ep5 Bernkastel says she know the solution of the epitaph because she has seen it browsing through kakera until she has found one where the solution is exposed. I guess it could be argued she has simply seen Ep3, but when Battler himself goes to see it, there are parts that are not available and the only thing Battler could see was the same thing we have seen in Ep3. I don't really get how Bernkastel could find the solution simply with that, and since we know the sea of Kakera Battler is found in is very vast, I assume Bernkastel found a Kakera where the epitaph's solution was clearer
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:53   Link #2950
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
I personally don't think "kakera" and "games" are the same thing. Beatrice creates games and numbers them with a precise order. However Bernkastel mentions the existence of many different kakera. Bernkastel do not create kakera which means they already exist. The existence of kakera unrelated to Beatrice's games is confirmed in the Ep4 secret tea party.
No, I'm well aware of that.

What I mean is that I don't think Beato's games occur in any kakera other than the ones we're shown.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 21:58   Link #2951
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Ah I totally agree with that. There's only been 5 games so far. Also I don't think Battler can see or know anything that isn't part of those games. However I think Bern can.

It is still a mystery how Battler can know what the Ange of 1998 knows, but I guess Chronotrig's idea makes sense.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 22:01   Link #2952
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Ah I totally agree with that. There's only been 5 games so far.
Therefore, how can the 1998 universe be the result of any game but Ep3? Is what I'm getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
It is still a mystery how Battler can know what the Ange of 1998 knows, but I guess Chronotrig's idea makes sense.
I think that spiritual journey thing he had kind of gave him the answer, in a way... maybe it just put all the pieces in order for him, so he could finally see the truth...
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 22:07   Link #2953
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Again, I really think this is overthinking the issue.

If we're being misled... WHY are we being misled? What would the point be?

Furthermore... there were only three games up until that point. Only one of which Eva survived. So...
My point here is that maybe we are not the ones being mislead. Battler was shown these scenes, so if you turn it around, you can argue that these scenes were created solely for Battler's benefit. That doesn't mean they're not true, but it might mean they're biased in some way or another.

Quote:
What I mean is that I don't think Beato's games occur in any kakera other than the ones we're shown.
It's a bit unfair to say this, since I haven't posted my gold text theory in a coherent way yet, but according to that theory, each game is actually a collection of Kakera. Also according to that, not a single game has been "completed" because we've never seen a coherent explanation for events. "Magic" means "lies". We have never been shown a "truth" that doesn't violate red text and doesn't rely on magic.

This means there doesn't exist a future for any of the games, though certain kakera that represent possibilities within a game might exist. So saying "Ange's 1998 is from the world of EP3" doesn't make sense. At best, it's the result of a single possible world that could have been part of EP3.

Hopefully that made some sense
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 22:14   Link #2954
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
My point here is that maybe we are not the ones being mislead. Battler was shown these scenes, so if you turn it around, you can argue that these scenes were created solely for Battler's benefit. That doesn't mean they're not true, but it might mean they're biased in some way or another.
Except that the magic scenes in the 1998 world are very obviously in Ange's head, awesome as they are.

So what would be the point of showing them to him...? Unless, of course, they're very, very crucial to solving the mystery.

...Did I ever post my CRACKish idea that Kasumi might actually be Asumu?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
It's a bit unfair to say this, since I haven't posted my gold text theory in a coherent way yet, but according to that theory, each game is actually a collection of Kakera. Also according to that, not a single game has been "completed" because we've never seen a coherent explanation for events. "Magic" means "lies". We have never been shown a "truth" that doesn't violate red text and doesn't rely on magic.

This means there doesn't exist a future for any of the games, though certain kakera that represent possibilities within a game might exist. So saying "Ange's 1998 is from the world of EP3" doesn't make sense. At best, it's the result of a single possible world that could have been part of EP3.

Hopefully that made some sense
Actually, it did. I see where you're coming from, now.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 23:23   Link #2955
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Therefore, how can the 1998 universe be the result of any game but Ep3? Is what I'm getting at.
Well according to my perspective it can't be any other way ^^;
The games are created by Beatrice, I don't have enough informations to determine how exactly this work, but Beatrice's games aren't real. With this I mean they aren't totally real, but it's unclear how much real they can be. The magic scenes are obviously false at least in the real world, and actually we know that the false things are not limited to those, see for example Kinzo telling Natsuhi that the one-winged eagle is engraved in her heart.
It is my belief that Beatrice can manipulate the games at will, not just magic scenes. She's bound to some rules she made herself but if she can show giant cakes falling from the sky she can show anything she wants. This is what games are. They might have a real world source but the finished package is nothing but Beatrice's creation.

However, regardless of Beatrice's games the real world exist, and within it an infinite number of Kakera exists. The Rokkenjima incident really happened and it happens regardless of Beatrice's games. There are infinite kakera each one with a different outcome of the Rokkenjima incident and all of them exist even if Beatrice is not using them.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 23:53   Link #2956
Neofio3
Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: That's right... where DO I live?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Well according to my perspective it can't be any other way ^^;
The games are created by Beatrice, I don't have enough informations to determine how exactly this work, but Beatrice's games aren't real. With this I mean they aren't totally real, but it's unclear how much real they can be. The magic scenes are obviously false at least in the real world, and actually we know that the false things are not limited to those, see for example Kinzo telling Natsuhi that the one-winged eagle is engraved in her heart.
It is my belief that Beatrice can manipulate the games at will, not just magic scenes. She's bound to some rules she made herself but if she can show giant cakes falling from the sky she can show anything she wants. This is what games are. They might have a real world source but the finished package is nothing but Beatrice's creation.

However, regardless of Beatrice's games the real world exist, and within it an infinite number of Kakera exists. The Rokkenjima incident really happened and it happens regardless of Beatrice's games. There are infinite kakera each one with a different outcome of the Rokkenjima incident and all of them exist even if Beatrice is not using them.
Essentially, as I see it, Umineko places You, the viewer, in the position of detective. So far, our proxy body within the game is piece Battler, while meta-battler is a personification of our theorycrafting. What piece Battler sees is our hard evidence. The gun here, the body placed in this position, the soy sauce left in the fridge... By definition, the detective cannot know anything than the hard evidence.

The entire game (not just Beatrice) acts as our "witnesses". For witnesses, the detective asks them questions, and they, in turn, provide him with their version of events. Said witnesses may be completely trustworthy. They may have ulterior motives. They may be delusional. They may be the culprits themselves. The detective, being non-omniscient, cannot actually know if what they say is true. The detective, in fact, should start out with the assumption that witnesses are not trustworthy, and only with collaboration with hard evidence (piece Battler's observations), can their truth be determined to be genuine. Seen in this light, the Red Truth acts as a crutch, "training wheels", because we're not quite up to stuff as detectives ourselves, or we lack the evidence required. The Red Truth is simply laziness in the part of the detective, where a truth is simply "magicked" into being, just because.
__________________
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
- Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Neofio3; 2009-11-09 at 00:04.
Neofio3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-08, 23:56   Link #2957
Ithekro
The Comet is Coming
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
It is starting to sound like semantic in wording here about 1998 and Game 3.

It is a future based on the events of Game 3's universe. It may or may not be the future of Game 3, but it is the events that needed to be seen for some reason. Otherwise there would be no point in showing us or Battler any of it. Even to confuse us would be wasted since we were already confused.

As for Bern...troll that she is, she's honest about her trolling (scary as that is). We'll have to see what Game 6 brings to the table, but I'm under the impression that Bern's motives are to keep Battler motivated to win the game absolutely in order to end it. Much like another potential Bern once cheated to get out of a game by placing all her pawns on Lambda's side of the field, thus having nine queens in rapid turns...or checkmate in short order. (time travel to the future happens there too...but to 1985 if I recall...to get the future to remember so the past remembers too....weird).

So I not quite done thinking Bern's on our side...if only because it suits her goals...assuming that she doesn't want an endless game...boredom being poison for witches and all that.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-09, 03:20   Link #2958
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 30
I think the one thing we can agree on regarding the world of 1998 is that while we can't exactly prove without a doubt that it was the continuation of Ep3, we do know at least the following:

1. Eva survives in a manner that may or may not be similar to Ep3's, which at least indicated that she was the only one that has been consistently proven to survive Rokkenjima at least once.

2. Battler is seemingly dead in these worlds. This brings into question that assuming that piece Battler actually stared down the barrel of the shotgun and was shot by a crazed Eva, he is so far the only person that can realistically be believed was killed by a human and not by a witch. Furthermore, the ending of Ep3 felt completely out of step with the entirety Ep3, as if to say it was a magic scene with a weirded out Eva.

The focus I think would go to Eva. Assuming that the world of 1998 where Witch Ange comes from may not have been the future of Ep3 (and personally I think there is the possibility it is not), this suggests that Eva's survival isn't an isolated fluke. This reinforces the realistic possibility that Eva had all the tools to survive Rokkenjima if she was the one who solves the epitaph. Furthermore, it also reinforces the idea that alongside the gold is a survival plan for whoever finds it.

And even then, the mere fact that the solver survives indicates that the gold gives the solver a bigger chance at survival.

I am inclined to think that the person who finds the gold isn't necessarily the culprit trying to hoard the gold for themselves. The temperament that Eva showed in the days after Rokkenjima, her eventual psychologic decline and treatment of Ange is more indicative of a person who just underwent an ungodly amount of pyschological and emotional stress rather than a calculating mastermind. Wherever this 1998 comes from, we know that Eva comes out with the gold. However, I am inclined to disagree that she's the culprit for that, despite what Ange would think.

We then go of course to piece Battler being shot by Eva. The scene always felt completely out of whack for me. Evatrice is almost completely convincing in showing that Eva wasn't the culprit, which makes Eva shooting Battler completely non-sensical. There was no point in her shooting him if she really was innocent, and the scene itself to me points to a completely unrealistic scene. It is as if the scene was addendum to the meta attker between Erika and Battler prior to the golden land. I am more inclined to think that the entire scene of Eva shooting Battler is a red herring.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-09, 03:35   Link #2959
Neofio3
Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: That's right... where DO I live?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 View Post
We then go of course to piece Battler being shot by Eva. The scene always felt completely out of whack for me. Evatrice is almost completely convincing in showing that Eva wasn't the culprit, which makes Eva shooting Battler completely non-sensical. There was no point in her shooting him if she really was innocent, and the scene itself to me points to a completely unrealistic scene. It is as if the scene was addendum to the meta attker between Erika and Battler prior to the golden land. I am more inclined to think that the entire scene of Eva shooting Battler is a red herring.
Or, following the wolf and sheep puzzle analogy, a moment of perceived self-defence. The two argue amongst themselves that one of them is the culprit, then Eva shoots Battler to ensure her safety.

Eva may not even be completely rational at that point. Assuming the scene where she and Rosa found the gold is real, and given it was her who convinced Rosa to keep silent about it, she may even believe the murders are her fault, at some level (and by extension that she is responsible for the death of her family). Which explains her quasi-confession to Battler about it.
__________________
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
- Terry Pratchett
Neofio3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-09, 03:38   Link #2960
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neofio3 View Post
Or, following the wolf and sheep puzzle analogy, a moment of perceived self-defence. The two argue amongst themselves that one of them is the culprit, then Eva shoots Battler to ensure her safety.

Eva may not even be completely rational at that point. Assuming the scene where she and Rosa found the gold is real, and given it was her who convinced Rosa to keep silent about it, she may even believe the murders are her fault, for some reason (and by extension that she is responsible for the death of her family). Which explains her quasi-confession to Battler about it.
If it were the case it would perhaps be believable but she went from an emotional wreck to perfectly calm, calculating with even a short Hannibal Lecture on Battler before pulling the trigger. Given the context of the final scene it felt completely out of character. It's not like they were in a heated argument or were fighting over the gun. Eva calmly raised and pointed the gun on him, spoke, and shot.
MeoTwister5 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 06:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.