Character Discussion - Lelouch

[Levy]

^ I totally agree with this. Lelouch failed several times in understanding the full span of the consequences of his actions, and this is what causes him the most dramatic problems.
I don't think you can say it's OOC, on the contrary, it is what makes him human. He's a quite a unique person, but still he has a lot of limits, and that's one of the things I enjoyed the most about his character.

..yup, Code Geass was for that... and for fanservice, I guess XD

[Yuzuki-Chii]

I think what makes Lelouch a great lead character for an anime is that he doesnt have a too cliched personality thats all goody-two-shoes and he actually makes mistakes along with evil intentions though him being the main character. Most main characters I've seen have been too good, too innocent, or too ... how to put it... predictable. I mean I might be wrong but those are my thoughts XD

[azul120]

I wouldn't call Lelouch evil so much as hardened and somewhat twisted from what happened by the time he was 10. Underneath all that, he still had heart, even if circumstances made it hard at times to act on his better instincts. Not to say that he didn't do unpardonable things, mind you. When all is said and done, it would be most accurate to call him Chaotic.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by azul120

I wouldn't call Lelouch evil so much as hardened and somewhat twisted from what happened by the time he was 10. Underneath all that, he still had heart, even if circumstances made it hard at times to act on his better instincts. Not to say that he didn't do unpardonable things, mind you. When all is said and done, it would be most accurate to call him Chaotic.

I agree with you mostly, and this one of the things that makes Lelouch an extremely complex character. Yes, deep down you could say that he was a good person who wanted to help others and make the world a better place, and while he more or less succeeded, the path he took was crooked as hell. And that's just it: actions speak louder than words. As Batman once said "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me". And again, I reiterate, you could say underneath he's this tortured soul who really is sympathetic towards other people, but if he doesn't act on those feelings than what's the point? This is one of the reasons that I find it very hard to sympathize with him sometimes. And I'll tell you what, I didn't, nor did I feel like, shedding one tear when he died in turn 25. Not that I didn't like the character though. I think he's one of the most badass anime characters to come out in recent years, I just don't sympathize with him too much.

[azul120]

Actually he did act on those feelings at the end with the Zero Requiem.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by azul120

Actually he did act on those feelings at the end with the Zero Requiem.

Yes, but of course that is the very end of the story. And a big part of ZR was that he had to act like a cruel and brutal dictator (which I really wish they had expanded on so we could know exactly to what extent he was a tyrant). And in the end, ZR was the just another extension, or rather the final act of his plan for a peaceful world, and again it was crooked as hell (I mean he geassed his own sister for chris'sake)

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Yes, but of course that is the very end of the story. And a big part of ZR was that he had to act like a cruel and brutal dictator (which I really wish they had expanded on so we could know exactly to what extent he was a tyrant). And in the end, ZR was the just another extension, or rather the final act of his plan for a peaceful world, and again it was crooked as hell (I mean he geassed his own sister for chris'sake)

What exactly was he supposed to do? She was gonna pull the same trick except with the Damocles and herself. Besides, if there's anything in this series Lelouch needed to get over, it was her.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

What exactly was he supposed to do? She was gonna pull the same trick except with the Damocles and herself. Besides, if there's anything in this series Lelouch needed to get over, it was her.

Take the key by force?

Though I would loved to see a scene where he tries that only to get his ass kicked by Nunnaly forcing Lelouch to geass her.

[azul120]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Yes, but of course that is the very end of the story. And a big part of ZR was that he had to act like a cruel and brutal dictator (which I really wish they had expanded on so we could know exactly to what extent he was a tyrant). And in the end, ZR was the just another extension, or rather the final act of his plan for a peaceful world, and again it was crooked as hell (I mean he geassed his own sister for chris'sake)

Acting like is not the same is being.

And he was left with no choice but to geass Nunnally in that case. And it was a simple command. He could have done much worse.

[morbosfist]

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

Take the key by force?

Though I would loved to see a scene where he tries that only to get his ass kicked by Nunnaly forcing Lelouch to geass her.

Yeah, because wrestling over the button that launches nukes is such a good idea when no one's aiming.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

Yeah, because wrestling over the button that launches nukes is such a good idea when no one's aiming.

It's not like Lelouch hasn't done something that stupid before like ordering an insane killer to rescue his sister, plus it would give the last episode much needed humor, well intentional humor.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

What exactly was he supposed to do? She was gonna pull the same trick except with the Damocles and herself. Besides, if there's anything in this series Lelouch needed to get over, it was her.

Point conceded. Bad example on my part.

Originally Posted by azul120

Acting like is not the same is being.

Well, what it really boils down to is a difference in philosophies. I mean what is the difference between acting like something and actually being something. Lets take take Anthony Hopkins for example, a professional actor, who once acted the part of Hannibal Lector, a cannibalistic psychopath. Now is Anthony Hopkins really a psychopath? Well, of course not, he's just an actor playing a part in a theatrical production. But one must admit that his performance is quite convincing and, if one didn't know better, they could be convinced that he is a psycho.

Now, let's take a real-life example. Let's say a person is usually conservative with their money, that is, they don't spend much. But now that person decides to act like they are more liberal with their money and spend more (how a circumstance like this could come about I'll leave to your imagination). So yes, one could say that even though that person is spending a lot of money he/she is still the same money-wise person underneath, but by the same token one could argue that that person is, in fact, a spendthrift, as it is not something you can pretend. If you don't spend much money then you are, for lack of a better word, a cheapskate, and if you spend a lot of money you are a spendthrift; it is what it is. Yes, that person could go back to saving their money, but for the time that they spent a lot of their money they were wasteful. But again this is just one way of looking at it, if you choose to believe differently that's fine. This really is very deep material we're talking about.

[azul120]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Point conceded. Bad example on my part.


Well, what it really boils down to is a difference in philosophies. I mean what is the difference between acting like something and actually being something. Lets take take Anthony Hopkins for example, a professional actor, who once acted the part of Hannibal Lector, a cannibalistic psychopath. Now is Anthony Hopkins really a psychopath? Well, of course not, he's just an actor playing a part in a theatrical production. But one must admit that his performance is quite convincing and, if one didn't know better, they could be convinced that he is a psycho.

Now, let's take a real-life example. Let's say a person is usually conservative with their money, that is, they don't spend much. But now that person decides to act like they are more liberal with their money and spend more (how a circumstance like this could come about I'll leave to your imagination). So yes, one could say that even though that person is spending a lot of money he/she is still the same money-wise person underneath, but by the same token one could argue that that person is, in fact, a spendthrift, as it is not something you can pretend. If you don't spend much money then you are, for lack of a better word, a cheapskate, and if you spend a lot of money you are a spendthrift; it is what it is. Yes, that person could go back to saving their money, but for the time that they spent a lot of their money they were wasteful. But again this is just one way of looking at it, if you choose to believe differently that's fine. This really is very deep material we're talking about.

What it comes down to an issue of how much of it was pure theatre.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by azul120

What it comes down to an issue of how much of it was pure theatre.

Well if you're talking about Lelouch than none of it was theatre, it was all real life. Theatre is just an outlet, a completely harmless outlet, for one to act in a certain way and to entertain people. But with Lelouch his acting took place in and affected the real world and had very severe consequences. And lets not forget that "Acting" and "Action" are derived from the same meaning.

[azul120]

Hasn't it been said that some of the stuff was pre-fabricated though?

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by azul120

Hasn't it been said that some of the stuff was pre-fabricated though?

What's your point? That some of the stuff he did was fake? Even so, it's irrelevant. The point is that people still believe that he did it.

EDIT: By the bye, I must take back what I said about acting in theatre having no harmful consequences. That is, it can have negative results for the actor. Take Heath Ledger for example. After his death many right-wing religious nuts boycotted his funeral, simply because he played a gay man. That's how seriously some people take acting, and I mean that in both senses of the word.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by azul120

Hasn't it been said that some of the stuff was pre-fabricated though?

To my knowledge almost nothing is known about the time between the Black Knights loss, and his death.

Its never stated if he massacred people, or if he faked the whole thing, but considering what's been stated I would hate to find out that they couldn't have Lelouch actually commit massacres, especially since the Nobles are clearly protrayed as evil.

[youngde]

Honestly, it wouldn't have been that hard for Lelouch to fake a whole lot of atrocities. Threaten the entire world with big-ass bombs, and I'm pretty sure people would believe anything bad said about you w/ relatively little evidence. Between faking stuff through the media (which he probably had strong control over) and Geassing a few people into believing they saw him commit atrocities, and the rumors would spread pretty fast. After that, it would just be a matter of letting his reputation snowball out of control.

[bladeofdarkness]

except that he used his control on the media to brodcast himself as the "great and noble ruler of the world" who finally defeated "the fools who opposed him"
just like any good totalitarian dictator would
the news people were even sick that they had to brodcast this kinda bullshit in his favor
you are all missing the main part becouse it was not actually shown on screen (if it had been, there was no way to portray lelouch as a hero in the end)
lelouch did not set out to PRETEND he was the greatest most horrible dictator in history
he set out to BECOME it
it was the whole point of the plan

we dont know what he actually did to gain that reputation
but im betting that it wasnt faked
he probably did kill a whole lot of people
he had probably purged most of the hawks on either side of the conflict (to make sure that after his death there would be fewer people pushing for war)
and he probably got rid of many of the nobles who would have opposed the new order of things
but he probably did end up killing many people who's only crime was opposing him
he needed to become the focus of all the hate of the world and needed to make sure that no one would ever learn that it was done for a specific purpose
he couldnt have FAKED IT becouse someone else could have ended up exposing it of the lie that it is
he needed for it to be real so that even if someone did learn about his reasons they could never actually try and expose it

[Mit Hydeist]

Well, same as in Suzaku discussion here: so many posts to read them all XDD

I must say (maybe it's pretty obvious) that I'm a Suzaku fan. And before I post my opinion on Lelouch I must also say that I cried like a damned over Lelouch's death U_U

But I don't like manipulative characters/people. And the way Lelouch manipule people with his geass it's simple horrible for me. Nunnally said to him that she could be happy living with his dear brother and friends... but Lelouch choose to unleash a chain of events that ended with the death of many of his friends and in his own death. That's so sad U_U