[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xander

Ragnarok was a metaphysical phenomenon with physical effects though, so it can be argued that the difference between "life" and "death" would be irrelevant from the perspective of those involved if the plan had actually succeeded, regardless of the resulting apocalyptic state of the world, precisely because a collective consciousness had been created. In a similar sense, there wouldn't be any visible difference between the "past" and the "present", essentially removing the possibility of a distinct future or a "tomorrow" as it were.

Lelouch's opposition to the plan, for better or for worse, wasn't primarily based on wanting to prevent the loss of life but on its other implications.

Sorry I missed your earlier post Xander, I didn't intentionally skip over your comments I was just in a rush this morning and focused on what Sol said.

And as always you make good points Xander.

Most of my angst, or ire if you will, is raised only when I see someone post what is easily contradicted in the series.
There is no denying the similarities between NGE and Code Geass in so far as the Instrumentality Project and the Ragnarok are concerned.
It isn't fanon its common sense.
I think it adds to Code Geass BTW in so far as it is nice to see that Lelouch thwarted the plan in the manner that Shinji failed to.
Meaning that Lelouch faced his father and overcame him while Shinji simply went along with Gendou.

You realize that all of this remains a matter of debate in the fields of philosophy and ideology? There is no single objective definition of democracy nor of humanity. Thousands of books have been written on the subject, hundreds of ideologies have come and gone, and there will never be a final answer that is superior to all the others combined.

I respectfully disagree.
We have seen countries which have tried to implement collectivist (mostly Socialist) governments and they've all been miserable failures.
The people are reduced to serfdom in most cases, and in some cases little more than slaves with no democratic input into the society.
North Korea, Mao's China, the Nationalist Socialists of Germany, Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Castro's Cuba, and now even Venezuela is headed for a dictatorship under Hugo Chavez are all prime examples of the worst failures, though many European countries have failed financially as well due to collectivist/welfare-state policies.
Thus history itself has weighed and measured collectivist systems in their current incarnations and found them grossly wanting in so far as democracy is concerned.

However, we're getting off topic here so allow me to drag it back to Lelouch.
Lelouch clearly despised the "redistribution of wealth" of the Chinese Federation and made no bones about it when he confronted the Eunuchs about the starvation of their people.
Here Okouchi hits the mark perfectly and Kudos to him for it.
Lelouch's UFN recongnized all people as equal (in so far as their ability to suceed or fail based on their own ambitions) and gave countries a democratic vote in the affairs of the UFN.
We don't know the inner workings of the USJ, so I won't go there.
It is my opinion that given what we know of all collectivist regimes that have existed in our world, Lelouch would have opposed them as vehemently as he did Britannia.
Therefore, it becomes clear why Lelouch would find the total collectivization of mankind into one consciousness so repulsive.

This larger debate barely matters in the context of the series, in and of itself, but it does mean that calling certain interpretations of the story "foolish" for that particular reason isn't really going to get us anywhere. What's more, the actual story of Code Geass is based on a huge amount of moral ambiguity and relativity to begin with. It's absolutely natural that not all of us will agree about this.

Agreed, my apologies to Sol for ragging on his/her view of this subject.
His/her opinion is no less or more correct than mine in so far as whether Lelouch deserved death and I recognize that.
We can disagree, but we shouldn't be disagreeable.
I like much of what Sol has posted here and actually do respect his/her opinion.
Perhaps I was too harsh about this...it's a vice I have, I'm very opinionated and stubborn to boot, but at least I admit it and try to make amends.

Is that not what every single one of us does, however, both consciously and otherwise? We all bring our own concepts of idealism and cynicism to whatever works of fiction we consume. Different people have different interpretations of the same story and this isn't exactly a "bad" thing. The same set of facts can be perceived through distinct angles and this doesn't make for inherently inferior or superior interpretations.

Very true, as I said above, I am too opinionated at times.

All the same, it could also be argued that you're projecting your own expectations and preferences into the story. It ultimately failed to meet them, for the reasons you've discussed, but others have the right to argue otherwise and engage in a debate. Hopefully without resorting to unnecessary personal attacks.

Of course I'm projecting my opinions and interpretations of Code Geass on this.
However, I should note that I've watched this damn series so much now (going on 13 times) that some episodes are burned into my skull.
Thus I've seen things that I didn't see the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,....etc. time over and the flaws have become glaringly obvious and near impossible to ignore.
It's amazing how much I missed the first time.
Though going through this the 13th time (I'm on episode 23 of S1) I'm seeing things more clearly IMHO and the show is not as good for me.
I loved Euphie the first time through and hated Lelouch for killing her.
On this 13th time through I can't stand Euphemia, and am actually looking forward to Lelouch shooting her.
I know that's sad in a way, but her character is not as pure to me now as it was the first couple of times through S1.

Okouchi himself, if this even mattered, would probably come here and tell us that nobody understood it "one bit" either. The author's intentions and interpretations aren't necessarily going to come through his work nor will they match those of his audience...nor should they be expected to do so. The story and its characters can always be evaluated independently by different critics who all have the right to speak and present their opinions.

Absolutely Okouchi would, and rightfully so.
He'd probably tell us we're all completely wrong.
George Lucas commented on this when Bill Moyer interviewed him after episode one of Star Wars was released in the late 90s.
He couldn't believe the lore and myth that fans had created around Star Wars, and how far off it was.

It's a bittersweet ending, more than anything else, which is precisely why it's entirely possible to focus on either the "happy" or "tragic" side of it depending on what one wishes to prioritize. And, just as well, you can either accept or reject the result.

I think I've said this here on this board somewhere before, but I thought it could have been a great ending if they'd done things a little different.
Lelouch would have made a marvelous tragic/martyr hero character if he had died a noble death.
I don't know if it was the rewrite due to the schedule change, or maybe there was more story than there was time to fit it in, but the Zero Requiem doesn't have the weight required (via a build up from supporting episodes) that it needed to be believable.
I think they wasted an opportunity in not having the whole House of Brittania die with the Damocles.
The first problem with the ZR was having Lelouch conduct a murderous reign of terror for no other reason than to become the "Demon Emperor."
His previous character development does not support this level of genocidal mania or capacity to act as a homicidal maniac.
Not even him crossing the Despair Event Horizon, it just was not in Lelouch to kill on that level. It would make him too much like Charles and would only compound, not erase, the SAZ massacre.
The second problem with the ZR was the FLIEJA firing, high orbital, fortress Damocles.
That was a missed opportunity IMHO.
Had they written it to where Schneizel used the fortress to inflict real horror from orbit and nuke major cities, then have Lelouch publicly destroy the fortress and die in the process as part of the Zero Requiem, the believability of a lasting peace would work.

I know you're paraphrasing and there's little need to literally dump a bunch of quotes here in order to nitpick such statements to death....but the thing is, Okouchi doesn't deny that the ending can be considered as a tragedy because of Lelouch's fate. He's actually admitting it.

I know, but I completely disagree with Okouchi that this was a happy ending in the way we viewers are presented it.
I'm sure his original story was probably much better than what we got to see.
He IS a very talented writer, but I don't think we got to see his vision in the same way he imagined it (again due to Sunrise and the schedule change, among other things).

Neither he nor Taniguchi himself, for that matter, are saying that the viewers are forced to share their interpretation of the story and whether or not the ending was a "happy" or "tragic" one. In fact, Taniguchi is quite explicit about leaving this up to the audience.

Yes they did, and I will not argue against that.
However, as I said above, I don't think we saw the R2 they wanted.
Supposedly Taniguichi said something to this effect, but for the life of me I don't remember where I read that (2ch maybe?).

You think that's a bunch of BS and they are both incompetent? That's alright, but others can and will disagree.

I did not say they were incompetent, I said the ZR was poorly written and executed.
I've seen most of his works and I loved Rahxephon (he wrote the movie screenplay), Planetes (script), and nearly all of Code Geass (except the ZR).
All were very well done.
I loved S-Cry-ed which Taniguichi directed, so I know he's an excellent director.
But everyone has a bad day or makes a mistake and these men are no different.
IMHO, the Zero Requiem is a good concept (Lelouch dying for the sake of the world) just the method, and execution of the idea were horribly lacking due to what came prior to it.
There's no doubt Lelouch was prepared to die from the begining of the show, and wanted to die by the time we get to the ZR.
My problem is HOW they chose to make him die (as I stated above).
It is not consistant with his character development and that is where they failed IMHO.

You think that he didn't deserve it and that the writer forced the ending on Lelouch. That's fine.

Yes, I do think that due to various reasons Okouchi chose to try and salvage the ending he envisioned instead of modfying it to conform to what they had already built up previously in the anime.

Some people agree with you, some don't. Others are somewhere between both positions. That's also fine.

Of course it is, and I'm fine with that.
It's like this with all popluar shows.
Look at the arguments over Star Trek Nemesis, or Voyager, or the Star Wars prequels.
Endless argument by the fans.

Regardless of this, what Lelouch did or didn't deserve remains up in the air for people like us to debate.

Which is exactly how it should be.

Originally Posted by azul120

Whoa, hold them ponies. It's true that she was selfish in her desires to be with Suzaku and Nunnally, but she also had good intentions, just tragically idealistic ones. That second-to-last sentence was uncalled for. She was a sweet, sweet person with a tragic deficit of common sense. (And I've been totally with your saving and reinvention of her character in your post-canon fanfic saga.)

At the same time, Lelouch was getting too careless with his examples, even with the Diabolus Ex Machina at hand.

At the end of the day, neither should have had to go through what they went through.

Hah!
I knew this chastisement was coming!

Euphemia did admit to Lelouch on Kaminejima that she didn't want to be selfish and she was very kind to Nina and others, so she did have her good points.
However, her desire to be with Suzaku seemed to dominate most of her decisions in the last third of the S1 episodes and that is primarily what I'm referring to here.
She was naive, and a ditz to some extent about certain things, but she was not portrayed as completely stupid.
I think one of the morals we're supposed to get out of Geass is that there are consequences to being selfish.
You not only hurt others, but also yourself, and Euphie was an extreme example of this.
But then again, I could be wrong.

I of course agree that neither character should have gone through what they went through, but I'll add--in the way they went through it.
Perhaps it would have been less of an ass-pull if Lelouch had Geassed Euphie in anger rather than via a Deus ex Machina.
Having her press Lelouch about his power and having him do one of his well established (by that time) bursts of anger would--IMO--have made more sense than just having the Geass activate for no other reason than "it got stronger."