Madoka Magica - Movie 3 Spoilers and Speculations

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

All that aside, what do you think of this very lengthy essay attacking the movie?

I'm now going to start my response to this essay by Novasylum. I won't be responding to everything, just some key points and some specific areas where I disagree with him.

First of all, as a basic approach to fiction in general - It's good to have themes. Thematic consistency is good. It's great if a work has this. But at the end of the day, this is entertainment, not education. There is nothing illegitimate about it having elements that are there simply to entertain. Even William Shakespeare's plays had their comedic relief, after all. And sheer spectacle has its place, especially in a movie of all things. As long as these elements don't outright contradict the themes or core ideas of a work, then it's fine if they're there.

Many of Novasylum's arguments frankly make me think of that old joke about the NFL. You know, the No Fun League. Likewise, it almost seems like he objects to the movie having any fun at all. You can certainly go too far with fanservice, but going to the opposite extreme of not servicing your fan's desires whatsoever strikes me as no better, and probably worse. High quality entertainment with a strong message behind it is great - It's enjoyable to watch, and good food for thought. A work with a strong message, but that fails to entertain, is not going to reach many people, undermining the message itself. As Mary Poppins famously said "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down". With themes, especially darker themes, it's good to have a spoonful of entertaining sugar to couch them in.


Now, even with that being said, I think that Novasylum has the wrong idea about some of these more fanservice-y sections. He wrote the following about the first section of the movie...

"The intent is obvious, isn’t it? The film is creating an idyllic, harmonious atmosphere that will inevitably contrast with the more horrifying truth once it is revealed."

Well no, that's not the point at all. This is a key error that Novasylum keeps making throughout his essay - He seems to think that the job of a sequel is to totally mirror the original, and just double-down on everything it's already done and accomplished. If that's all a sequel is, then why even have a sequel? It would make the sequel completely redundant, and hence pointless.

The Rebellion narrative is not a total mirror of the TV series narrative. It is a continuation of it, with its own story to tell.

The film is creating an idyllic, harmonious atmosphere... to better explain why Homura makes the decision she does in the final act of the movie. Part of the reason why Homura wants Madoka to once more be a normal human girl is because of just how happy and content Madoka seems in the first quarter of the movie. And I don't think this is something that could be accomplished with just a few minutes of happy-go-lucky time. Just a few minutes of that would in fact lead people into the exact wrong assessment that Novasylum presupposes is the case. You have to have the happy-go-lucky time go on for a very significant stretch of time to make it clear that its purpose is more than just tonal contrast.

Now, as for the Homura vs. Mami fight. Yes, that's clearly meant to be great fun in and of itself. But I do think it has a deeper purpose that Novasylum has missed. I think it's to show just how fiercely independent, isolated, and desperate Homura has become and/or feels. This, again, foreshadows what Homura does in the final act of the movie.


Now, as it pertains to his complaints over Sayaka. Yes, Sayaka's fall in the original TV series was important. Because it's important in order to fully appreciate why Madoka takes the actions she does in Episode 12. Sayaka is an essential bridge from the personal/local to the wider world. "This horrible thing happened to my friend, who I care a lot about. All the other people who suffered like she did had friends of their own. I can't allow this to go on. I must correct it!" Madoka's selfless altruism is hence rooted in a personal connection, making it easier for the average person to understand and support. Madoka now has very personal reasons for hating this puella magi system, and hence wanting to correct it. It's like a celebrity losing his best friend to cancer, and hence starting up a charity to fundraise for more cancer research. Madoka's altruism and idealism may well seem a bit too abstract and lacking a human touch if not for this personal connection to a victim.

However, that's done. It's finished. It's accomplished. Sayaka operating as essentially an Archangel of Madokami does not undermine this whatsoever. In fact, it reinforces the importance of the personal connection here. Even as a higher being, Madoka still values her personal connections enough to keep Sayaka close at her side, as an important friend and ally in enforcing "The Law of Cycles". Hence Madoka retains some core elements of her humanity, meaning that Madokami is not just some terribly impersonal abstract concept, but a being with a warm heart and a distinct character that does not forget the human she once was.

Now, does Sayaka regaining a corporeal existence in the world of the living undermine things a bit? Maybe. But if so, that's only a post-Madokami consideration - Sayaka's presence in the rest of the movie is perfectly fine (as it's not in a real world), and justifiable by what I just pointed out. Furthermore, it's very much secondary to the thematic impact of what's done to Madokami.


I'm going to leave it at that for now. I think that addresses (directly or indirectly) most of Novasylum's points that I disagreed with.

[AuraTwilight]

Now, as for the Homura vs. Mami fight. Yes, that's clearly meant to be great fun in and of itself. But I do think it has a deeper purpose that Novasylum has missed. I think it's to show just how fiercely independent, isolated, and desperate Homura has become and/or feels. This, again, foreshadows what Homura does in the final act of the movie.

I'm not really sure I can see this interpretation, really. Desperate, maybe. But she was always pretty independent and isolated in the first place, and I'm not sure how the fight demonstrates any of this except for the end where Homura fakes a suicide...

Which you could've gotten to way earlier and without a potentially problematic flair-fest.

(Note: I'm just trying to gauge the essay writer's POV here).

Well no, that's not the point at all. This is a key error that Novasylum keeps making throughout his essay - He seems to think that the job of a sequel is to totally mirror the original, and just double-down on everything it's already done and accomplished. If that's all a sequel is, then why even have a sequel? It would make the sequel completely redundant, and hence pointless.

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying a sequel should, at the very least, continue the thematic narrative or atleast properly challenge it (which he doesn't believe Rebellion does).

Many of Novasylum's arguments frankly make me think of that old joke about the NFL. You know, the No Fun League. Likewise, it almost seems like he objects to the movie having any fun at all. You can certainly go too far with fanservice, but going to the opposite extreme of not servicing your fan's desires whatsoever strikes me as no better, and probably worse. High quality entertainment with a strong message behind it is great - It's enjoyable to watch, and good food for thought. A work with a strong message, but that fails to entertain, is not going to reach many people, undermining the message itself. As Mary Poppins famously said "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down". With themes, especially darker themes, it's good to have a spoonful of entertaining sugar to couch them in.

But he DOES have a point that the original TV series is basically exactly how he describes. No wasted air-time, everything is atleast marginally important, there's no real fan-service to speak of, and the current point is never belabored. Madoka Magica is pretty masterfully directed.

...Is Rebellion? Can you literally tell me that there's nothing in there that's purely JUST spectacle, or fanservice, or something? Even if you're perfectly fine with spectacle and disconnect, its presence implies a change in the mindset and goals of the Implied Author and the intended Target Audience, and that's atleast worrisome for the precedent it sets and the road it opens up.

The film is creating an idyllic, harmonious atmosphere... to better explain why Homura makes the decision she does in the final act of the movie. Part of the reason why Homura wants Madoka to once more be a normal human girl is because of just how happy and content Madoka seems in the first quarter of the movie. And I don't think this is something that could be accomplished with just a few minutes of happy-go-lucky time. Just a few minutes of that would in fact lead people into the exact wrong assessment that Novasylum presupposes is the case. You have to have the happy-go-lucky time go on for a very significant stretch of time to make it clear that its purpose is more than just tonal contrast.

I'm not sure how you conclude this. Let's assume you're right about the intentions of the sequence; how does it's length service this point that, say, half the time wouldn't do?

At the very least, couldn't the point be made perfectly well without the 3 minute transformation sequence? Now, I liked the entertaining flair as much as the next guy, but I also admit that Rebellion has atleast some problems (let's say, the lack of exposition in the ending). Rebellion has WAY less time than the TV series, and thus has less room to be making mistakes. The funfest in the beginning probably isn't RESPONSIBLE for the weaned, confusing, barely exposited ending that came out of practically nowhere with only a few sprinkles of foreshadowing...but it did eat up time that could have been used to flesh it out in a way that would leave people better satisfied.

And the essay writer isn't the only person who's complained about the length of the Happy Opening sequence. It goes on for literally more than half an hour. In a second season, this would have been fine, I freely admit that, but in the movie experience, enough people found this grating and bothersome that it's probably indicative of a directing failure. The point was belabored.

Like...did we really need TWO Nightmare fights? Did we need to emulate the beginning of episode one with Madoka's family scene for scene, word for word?

However, that's done. It's finished. It's accomplished. Sayaka operating as essentially an Archangel of Madokami does not undermine this whatsoever. In fact, it reinforces the importance of the personal connection here. Even as a higher being, Madoka still values her personal connections enough to keep Sayaka close at her side, as an important friend and ally in enforcing "The Law of Cycles". Hence Madoka retains some core elements of her humanity, meaning that Madokami is not just some terribly impersonal abstract concept, but a being with a warm heart and a distinct character that does not forget the human she once was.

Now, does Sayaka regaining a corporeal existence in the world of the living undermine things a bit? Maybe. But if so, that's only a post-Madokami consideration - Sayaka's presence in the rest of the movie is perfectly fine (as it's not in a real world), and justifiable by what I just pointed out. Furthermore, it's very much secondary to the thematic impact of what's done to Madokami.

I agree, though I will add that...well, thinking on it, putting aside that she's a main character, Sayaka didn't HAVE to be in this movie.

Okay that came out wrong, let me put that another way. I know the point was to bring all the girls together, and to have character development like the Sayaka/Kyouko stuff. That's all well-and-good, but in an in-universe perspective, Sayaka is ALMOST as pointless as Bebe. She has the shock value of being here and stirring the status quo and confusing Homura and everything but like...

Why did Madoka bring her here? Okay, maybe she brought Sayaka to facilitate the happy Soul Gem world's illusion except...why would she do that? They want to save Homura ASAP, so why were Nagisa and Sayaka indulging in it? Well, they give reasons I guess, but like Novasylum brings up, Bebe could've ended the Mami/Homura fight by nipping it in the bud.

But even that's a tangent. Why did Madoka need to divide her memories and power up like that in the first place? To trick Kyubey, apparently, except....um. He doesn't DO anything, or TRY to do anything. The onus is entirely and completely on Homura to crack in order to lay the trap, apparently. Nagisa and Sayaka don't really do anything to subvert Kyubey's plan at all.

No, really, they don't. The final fight sequence could've gone exactly the same if all three of them had their memories and Madoka was just playing dumb. So why did she? I mean, Nagisa and Sayaka played dumb, so why couldn't she?

But we know why it happened. It happened so that an amnesiac Madoka can give an ignorant response to a misleading hypothetical so that Homura could draw the wrong conclusions. Like so much else in this movie, characters act unintuitively, setting rules are bent or ignored, and character development is removed via amnesia, so that the cards can fall into place to facilitate the rise of Devil Homura.

When you have to completely disregard the entire setting, alter the characters, put them in a NEW setting, and have them think and behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't in order to facilitate your ending, your ending has a serious problem.

Soul Gem world IS a huge narrative problem in the work on a thematic and storytelling level. As much as I love the idea and as much as it could've been played well, it really wasn't. It's literally a big fanfiction made into a canon event, and while I'd love to say it's a meta-satire, creator interviews illuminate that this is an entirely unironic indulgence.

Literally everyone in the movie is OOC, and the main reason is that the fans wanted to see it. And then Homura's "development" is by acting on the words and actions of a false Madoka. It may have been "her", but her memories were different, her worldview was different, and she hadn't made any of the decisions or discoveries or growths that the real Madoka did. And because she wanted to hang on to that Madoka, Homura basically turned into a completely different person.

Because NOBODY can convince me that Homura didn't learn better at the end of episode 12. She was at peace. She was smiling. She had grown from wanting to protect Madoka-the-Object to wanting to protect Madoka's ideals.

...Also lol where the hell is that desert, by the way? How were Mami and Kyouko going to get all those people home if Homura didn't hijack the ending?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm not really sure I can see this interpretation, really. Desperate, maybe. But she was always pretty independent and isolated in the first place,

Back in the TV show. But not during the first quarter of this movie. And so it's probably important for the movie to show that the "old" Homura is back, after giving us Moemora for the first quarter of the movie.

I think that one of the main goals of this movie is about showing a renewed extended version of Homura's character arc (with a twist at the end). A character arc from Moemura to Homura happens all over again, and this time much more detailed than Episode 10 was (which is a good thing, in my view).

This movie is definitely Homura's story, at least as much as A Christmas Carol is Scrooge's story (the way Homura interacts with Kyouko then Mami then Sayaka one after the other, honestly reminds me a bit of Scrooge interacting with each of the three Ghosts of Christmas). A big point of this movie is shining a huge spotlight on Homura, and watching her character being very carefully and meticulously explored/developed anew. And making that extra-effective is seeing Homura interact one after another with key people and players in her life, in her many struggles to save Madoka. That's one of the reasons why it's nice that Sayaka is there - To give a greater sense of fullness to Homura's character arc and slow trip down memory lane.

This is all a key difference between Rebellion and the original TV Series - Contrary to what some people will say, Homura is not the main character of the original TV series. Madoka is. It's Madoka's actions that matter the most in the original TV series. It's Madoka that the plot keeps re-centering on, even as each of the other main cast members gets their turn in the spotlight.

The shift from Madoka-centric narrative to Homura-centric narrative means that it will be a very different narrative.

...and I'm not sure how the fight demonstrates any of this except for the end where Homura fakes a suicide...

Well, there's the fact that there was a fight to begin with. Homura could have tried words first. But she didn't.

And yeah, the fake suicide is pretty suggestive itself.

Which you could've gotten to way earlier and without a potentially problematic flair-fest.

How was it "problematic"? Most viewers I've talked to about it seemed to love it. And I haven't heard much complaints about the sheer length of the movie. I certainly didn't find it an overly long watch.

That's not what he's saying at all.

That might not be what he wants to say. But that's where his arguments logically lead, imo. Why should a viewer just assume that "creating an idyllic, harmonious atmosphere" is a matter of putting a tonal contrast in play? Right off the bat, he seems to be assuming that the Rebellion narrative is aiming for the exact same thing as the TV series did (where sheer tonal contrast was key). He doesn't seem to be letting Rebellion speak for itself. He really does seem, at least to me, to be expecting Rebellion to just double-down on everything the TV series has already accomplished. Which would be redundant and pointless, imo.

But he DOES have a point that the original TV series is basically exactly how he describes. No wasted air-time, everything is atleast marginally important, there's no real fan-service to speak of, and the current point is never belabored.

This is mainly a reflection of time constraints, and the original TV series narrative simply being longer. The TV series narrative has an awful lot to cover, so there's just no time for fanservice.

Rebellion's narrative has much less to cover, and hence has more time to decompress the narrative and have a little bit of fun with it. To me, that's a good thing.

Even if you're perfectly fine with spectacle and disconnect, its presence implies a change in the mindset and goals of the Implied Author and the intended Target Audience,

Not necessarily. It might just mean that the Author isn't tied down by time constraints as much because his sequel narrative is shorter and so SHAFT can have some fun and spice things up a bit.

I'm not sure how you conclude this. Let's assume you're right about the intentions of the sequence; how does it's length service this point that, say, half the time wouldn't do?

At the very least, couldn't the point be made perfectly well without the 3 minute transformation sequence? Now, I liked the entertaining flair as much as the next guy, but I also admit that Rebellion has atleast some problems (let's say, the lack of exposition in the ending).

The lack of exposition in the ending is only a problem if this doesn't get a sequel. The lack of exposition implies a sequel hook, imo, which is fine as long as there is an actual sequel. But yes, it would make a very weak aftermath/epilogue if this is the final ending (which is one reason why I don't want this to be the final ending).

And the essay writer isn't the only person who's complained about the length of the Happy Opening sequence. It goes on for literally more than half an hour. In a second season, this would have been fine, I freely admit that, but in the movie experience, enough people found this grating and bothersome that it's probably indicative of a directing failure.

And how about all the people that loved it? Most Madoka fans I've talked to about this movie loved the first quarter of it. For me, it was a directing success. I loved it. I found it very nice and effective.

Like...did we really need TWO Nightmare fights? Did we need to emulate the beginning of episode one with Madoka's family scene for scene, word for word?

I thought that was a nice touch. Giving the movie a comforting sense of familiarity to better ease older fans into it, and reflecting how we were going back to the beginning, both with Madoka and with Homura.

Why did Madoka bring her here? Okay, maybe she brought Sayaka to facilitate the happy Soul Gem world's illusion except...why would she do that? They want to save Homura ASAP, so why were Nagisa and Sayaka indulging in it? Well, they give reasons I guess, but like Novasylum brings up, Bebe could've ended the Mami/Homura fight by nipping it in the bud.

They probably thought this experience would be beneficial for Homura. Or perhaps even for Mami and Kyouko. Kyouko did seem pretty upset about losing Sayaka just after they became friends, back in Episode 12 in Madoka!world. Maybe Madoka and/or Sayaka thought it would be a good idea to take advantage of this situation to give Kyouko some more time to spend with her new friend Sayaka.

Or maybe there was a simple and understandable bit of selfishness here. Here was possibly Madoka's last chance to enjoy family life again. An unique opportunity to experience that while living in Homura's dreamworld.

Here was a chance for Madoka and Sayaka to enjoy the sort of happily united magical girl team they always wanted to be a part of. And perhaps Madoka thought it would be nice to have a real break from being Madokami, and maybe both her and Sayaka thought it would be cool if Sayaka gets to be the totally informed insider for a change. Maybe they thought that would be funny and ironic. So the memory transfer. Madoka gets to literally forget all about being Madokami, a great way to get a break from it.

So there you go - Plenty of possible reasons. None of them OoC, in my view.

Madoka and Sayaka are perhaps guilty of overconfidence. But given Madoka's power/knowledge, and the ages of the two girls, I don't find it that hard to accept.

Soul Gem world IS a huge narrative problem in the work on a thematic and storytelling level.

I disagree. I think it works fine.

Because NOBODY can convince me that Homura didn't learn better at the end of episode 12. She was at peace. She was smiling. She had grown from wanting to protect Madoka-the-Object to wanting to protect Madoka's ideals.

At that exact smiling moment? Probably. But time and longing and loneliness can change a person. IIRC, Homura stated in the Rebellion movie that she had even started to doubt the very existence of Madoka.

[AuraTwilight]

Back in the TV show. But not during the first quarter of this movie. And so it's probably important for the movie to show that the "old" Homura is back, after giving us Moemora for the first quarter of the movie.

I'm 100% sure that ditching the braids and glasses, talking like her old self, and displaying her old memories and knowledge is sufficient to do this.

I think that one of the main goals of this movie is about showing a renewed extended version of Homura's character arc (with a twist at the end). A character arc from Moemura to Homura happens all over again, and this time much more detailed than Episode 10 was (which is a good thing, in my view).

...Why? Why do we need to see this again, when we've already seen it? This contradicts what you said before about the whole point of sequels.

Well, there's the fact that there was a fight to begin with. Homura could have tried words first. But she didn't.

And yeah, the fake suicide is pretty suggestive itself.

Yea, but why do they fight at all? What does the fight bring to the story except flair and showing that Homura's basically out of her mind?

If you want to show how Homura's character is different, the dialog at the end of the scene is sufficient; she's acting desperate and crazy, and unlike with the Kyouko/Sayaka fight, there's no clash of ideals or trading of thoughts and dialog until afterwards.

Also, neither of the girls are trying to kill each other like Kyouko and Sayaka are. Mami is understandable; she's trying to save her friend's life. But Homura's never been willing to fight other Puella Magi like this even in pursuit of saving Madoka, and not enough has happened to make her DESPERATE enough to take this course of action. They're in a Witch's labyrinth, but no one has been attacked at all and she herself said moments ago that as long as they play dumb they're safe. There is NO REASON to be desperate or to panic like this, she has no time clock or pressure.

...Hell, i'm kind of curious why Mami even suspected her enough to put a ribbon on her foot. She changed her look and asked how she and Bebe became friends. ...and uh. So? Both of those are innocent enough. Does Mami just casually stalk everyone she knows, or something? Is she...ohoho...overly attached?

Seriously, the actions and thoughts of the characters don't logically progress from who they are as people, as in the TV series. They do what the plot needs them to do to facilitate scenes and events and the rationalizations come later in the writing.

How was it "problematic"? Most viewers I've talked to about it seemed to love it. And I haven't heard much complaints about the sheer length of the movie. I certainly didn't find it an overly long watch.

It's totally badass and fun to watch, yea, but it doesn't really serve a significant purpose like the Kyouko/Sayaka example. You praise it for flair. Flair is not good enough. Madoka Magica hasn't relied on flair to fill space before, why should the movie resort to it?

I don't have nothing against flair, but not at the expense of actually important storytelling, and as I've already belabored before, the final act of the movie is DEPRIVED of proper development. I cannot overlook style when there's a lack of substance to make the movie's final act function.

That might not be what he wants to say. But that's where his arguments logically lead, imo. Why should a viewer just assume that "creating an idyllic, harmonious atmosphere" is a matter of putting a tonal contrast in play? Right off the bat, he seems to be assuming that the Rebellion narrative is aiming for the exact same thing as the TV series did (where sheer tonal contrast was key). He doesn't seem to be letting Rebellion speak for itself. He really does seem, at least to me, to be expecting Rebellion to just double-down on everything the TV series has already accomplished. Which would be redundant and pointless, imo.

You're completely putting words in Novasylum's mouth, and that's not intellectually honest. Nevermind that he phrases the idea in such a way that it's truth isn't really relevant to the point he's making. If the purpose of the sequence is correct or not, he's talking about the efficiency of it's storytelling, not about what it's TRYING to say.

You also can't really say he's wrong; at best, you're both just giving exclusive speculations of what that scene is for, but regardless of what the sequence is for, it still DOES paint an evocative, nostalgic contrast between a happy setting and a darker one.

This is mainly a reflection of time constraints, and the original TV series narrative simply being longer. The TV series narrative has an awful lot to cover, so there's just no time for fanservice.

Rebellion's narrative has much less to cover, and hence has more time to decompress the narrative and have a little bit of fun with it. To me, that's a good thing.

And yet it still doesn't explain things it really should have explained, and I frankly don't buy this excuse because Urobuchi originally intended this basic idea for Rebellion as a second season.

I don't mind having fun with things, but do your work before you play. That's a reasonable request, right? Like...you and I have both complained about the ending on this movie and the poor exposition in the middle of the movie, you can't deny that some time could've been allocated.

The lack of exposition in the ending is only a problem if this doesn't get a sequel. The lack of exposition implies a sequel hook, imo, which is fine as long as there is an actual sequel. But yes, it would make a very weak aftermath/epilogue if this is the final ending (which is one reason why I don't want this to be the final ending).

It's a problem either way. Let's assume a sequel is coming. Great.

So. Uh. They billed this as the end of a trilogy. But it's...not? Because the movie doesn't stand on it's own merits. The movie cannot properly stand alone as an artistic work because it seems to be saying something but you can't elucidate that message until the sequel.

Like...it's sort of like with the TV anime. All 12 episodes together make a final product. Any single episode might be good, but they are part of a full product saying a full message. Despite that, they do try to be as stand-alone as possible as artistic pieces, and instead of having SHOCK TWISTS at the end, those cliffhanging whams are spread into the entire episode narrative. The shocking swerve at the end of EP8 is laid out and foreshadowed throughout the entire episode.

It's not the sequel hook at the end of the episode; it's the thesis statement. You can't remove Sayaka's collapse from Episode 8 without fully reducing it.

at best, Homura's ascension is a poorly set-up thesis statement. At worst, it's an open cash grab tacked on to a foreign work. You can literally cut it out of the movie and have anything from a movie literally almost just as good to, for a lot of people, LITERALLY BETTER.

Without further elaboration, the end of Rebellion isn't SAYING anything. It's not a complete argument. It's like splitting a movie adaptation of a novel into two books. That's bad film directing. Actual professors at actual film schools will tell you NOT TO DO what Rebellion did.

And how about all the people that loved it? Most Madoka fans I've talked to about this movie loved the first quarter of it. For me, it was a directing success. I loved it. I found it very nice and effective.

As did I, don't get me wrong. But with the above, was it really the best use of the film's time?

I thought that was a nice touch. Giving the movie a comforting sense of familiarity to better ease older fans into it, and reflecting how we were going back to the beginning, both with Madoka and with Homura.

Okay, but that just means that this sequel isn't continuing from where it's prequel left off. It's an artificial reboot except it's canon. See my above arguments.

They probably thought this experience would be beneficial for Homura. Or perhaps even for Mami and Kyouko. Kyouko did seem pretty upset about losing Sayaka just after they became friends, back in Episode 12 in Madoka!world. Maybe Madoka and/or Sayaka thought it would be a good idea to take advantage of this situation to give Kyouko some more time to spend with her new friend Sayaka.

Or maybe there was a simple and understandable bit of selfishness here. Here was possibly Madoka's last chance to enjoy family life again. An unique opportunity to experience that while living in Homura's dreamworld.

Here was a chance for Madoka and Sayaka to enjoy the sort of happily united magical girl team they always wanted to be a part of. And perhaps Madoka thought it would be nice to have a real break from being Madokami, and maybe both her and Sayaka thought it would be cool if Sayaka gets to be the totally informed insider for a change. Maybe they thought that would be funny and ironic. So the memory transfer. Madoka gets to literally forget all about being Madokami, a great way to get a break from it.

So there you go - Plenty of possible reasons. None of them OoC, in my view.

Madoka and Sayaka are perhaps guilty of overconfidence. But given Madoka's power/knowledge, and the ages of the two girls, I don't find it that hard to accept.

I'll give you that, but none of that explains the "Why didn't Bebe drop the act" problem.

Hell, what about when Sayaka saved Homura and half-explained things? Why not have come all the way forward? At the very least, go, "Actually, it's Kyubey. And we know what he's planning, and how to beat him."

I mean, damn, ultimate keywords for getting Homura to cooperate with you, or atleast LISTEN.

It also doesn't explain why Madoka had to have her own memories erased. She can't be THAT bad of an actress.

I disagree. I think it works fine.

Do you mind elaborating? I enjoy discussing things with you and would like more than a "No" to my points.

At that exact smiling moment? Probably. But time and longing and loneliness can change a person. IIRC, Homura stated in the Rebellion movie that she had even started to doubt the very existence of Madoka.

...Yea, but why? And how long has it been, REALLY?

The opening "Colorful" sequence heavily implies she literally collapses in that same desert where she was smiling and hearing Madoka's voice and kicking ass. She probably wasn't in that desert for like....weeks or months or even days, you know. Even if we assume it was a full week, for some ungodly reason, that's still a really, REALLY radical change in personality.

The hell happened in that desert? "Time passes lol" is just a handwave to avoid depicting the changes in Homura's character that the film needs her to have.

[andyjay729]

Nice responses. Overall I disagree with Novasylum in thinking that the movie "betrayed" the TV series, but I still think he made some good points.

What do you think about Redditor SohumB's almost-as-lengthy response below? I'm particularly taken with these passages...

"Together, they counter each other, and that is the point. Together, the show and Rebellion are cyclical, present the two halves of the argument, only picking sides ever so slightly. Together, the combined show acknowledges that hey, this problem is hard, and there are no easy answers, and even the hard answers aren't answers but we have to pick one anyway."

"You could argue that the characters are inconsistent (but I think Homura gets to reach for selflessness in Madoka's story, and Madoka gets to reach for selfishness in Homura's story, and that this is also part of the point. That one story happens chronologically after the other one feels more like an unfortunate artifact rather than an argument to me.) You could argue that the story logic doesn't work (but let's be honest here, story logic was never Madoka Magica's forte.) You could argue that this is too depressing, that Madoka was humanity-affirming in a strong way and that this ruins that and they shouldn't have presented the second half of the argument...

...but would you have liked the show if it had presented the Rebellion half first?"

and lastly,

"So yea, the indulgence. To a certain degree, it is necessary - though we don't know it at the time, every depiction of how life is in False Mitikahara is about what Homura wants and can't accept. But let's not fool ourselves; you're right in that there's well more and more indulgent such devices than is necessary in any way, and there are no justifications for the audience shift.

Even so, what intrigues me more is that what Homura wants (but can't have (but takes anyway)) is directly identified with what the fans wanted. That could totally be cultural commentary, in a very Database Animal sort of way - the otaku culture of re-appropriation is identified with an idealised dream, in a movie that doesn't think idealised dreams are silly? Huh. Huh."

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm 100% sure that ditching the braids and glasses, talking like her old self, and displaying her old memories and knowledge is sufficient to do this.

I disagree. Mere cosmetic changes alone are not the best way for displaying character changes. They can nicely accentuate them, or symbolically reinforce them, but I think that there should be concrete character actions that also display character changes.

Besides, they should go extra far in making Homura's character changes clear because Homura is going to be going extra far in this movie - Farther than she's ever gone before.

So I don't think that Homura's dialogue alone is sufficient for showing how her character has changed. I mean, we're use to hearing Homura speak in cool and/or desperate tones. But, as you yourself pointed out, her getting into a lengthy fight with another Puella Magi really is different for her. It suggests that her character is undergoing greater changes this time than before. Which nicely foreshadows Homura's choices to come.

...Why? Why do we need to see this again, when we've already seen it?

Because it's going farther this time. And it was obviously rushed the first time. And because it's going farther this time, it doesn't contradict what I said about the whole point of sequels.

Also, neither of the girls are trying to kill each other like Kyouko and Sayaka are.

So what? Are you saying a fight scene only has meaning if both sides are trying to kill each other? So almost every fight scene that Superman or Batman were ever involved in is meaningless just because they tend to have strict no-kill policies?

Mami is understandable; she's trying to save her friend's life. But Homura's never been willing to fight other Puella Magi like this even in pursuit of saving Madoka, and not enough has happened to make her DESPERATE enough to take this course of action.

If I was aware that I was in a false world, one in which most people are faceless, and where I went through the creepy stuff that Homura and Kyouko did, I might be very desperate to get out myself. So I think Homura has good reason for being as desperate as she is.

...Hell, i'm kind of curious why Mami even suspected her enough to put a ribbon on her foot. She changed her look and asked how she and Bebe became friends. ...and uh. So?

It's a little bit suspicious. I'd find it a little bit suspicious if I was Mami. And if I was in Mami's shoes and aware of Homura's time-stop abilities, I might choose to take extra precautions as well.

Seriously, the actions and thoughts of the characters don't logically progress from who they are as people, as in the TV series.

This movie is showing some of the ways they've changed as people - Sayaka, for example, displays a lot more coolness and confidence here than she did in the TV series, which I think reflects her and Madoka being a bit overconfident about the whole situation and hence taking questionable risks. So I think the character's actions make sense when you consider how they've changed. I will grant you, though, that what has caused these changes is sometimes left to viewer speculation. In Sayaka's case, I can only guess that feeling like you're backed up by an actual God-like being that's also your best friend might give you a lot of confidence.

It's totally badass and fun to watch, yea, but it doesn't really serve a significant purpose like the Kyouko/Sayaka example.

It helps in showing just how desperate and "on the edge" Homura is. Which makes her later choices easier to swallow, imo.

But in any event, I disagree with you on flair. There is nothing wrong with the odd scene that's all about flair. Flair is good enough for the odd scene. As long as it doesn't contradict what the story is aiming for, it's fine.

You're completely putting words in Novasylum's mouth,

I'm reframing his arguments to critique them. I'm not saying that this reframing is what he intended to say, just that I think this reframing is where his arguments (taken collectively) logically lead. And I honestly think that this is where his arguments lead, so I'm not being intellectually dishonest here.

Compare it to a political argument.

Person A: I support a flat income tax. I think that everybody being taxed at the same rate is fair and ideal.

Person B: So in other words, you want poor people to be taxed more and rich people to be taxed less.

Person A: That's not what I said! You're putting words into my mouth. I just want fairness!

Person B: Like it or not, my friend, higher taxes for the poor and lower taxes for the rich is what your suggestion ultimately leads to.


There's nothing wrong or intellectually dishonest about showing the downsides to another person's arguments. It is a perfectly legitimate point to raise against another person's arguments.

Nevermind that he phrases the idea in such a way that it's truth isn't really relevant to the point he's making.

Sure it's relevant to the point that he's making. At least part of the reason why he found the happy-go-lucky time overly long is because he expected it to just be about tonal contrast.

You also can't really say he's wrong; at best, you're both just giving exclusive speculations of what that scene is for, but regardless of what the sequence is for, it still DOES paint an evocative, nostalgic contrast between a happy setting and a darker one.

It didn't for me. I didn't take that from the opening scenes at all. Now I knew things wouldn't stay this bright and cheery for the entire movie - The trailers alone made that obvious. But I wasn't assuming the whole purpose here was tonal contrast. So I can really say that I think Novasylum's argument is wrong. That viewers shouldn't just assume that the opening scenes of this movie is just about setting the stage for a tonal contrast.

It's a problem either way. Let's assume a sequel is coming. Great.

So. Uh. They billed this as the end of a trilogy.

If we get a sequel, then the full narrative is more than a movie trilogy alone.

The movie can stand on it's own merits. Certain basic things are made clear. I don't think it makes for a satisfying final ending, but I do think it's a reasonably good stopping point.

I would compare it to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. That wouldn't work that well as a final ending at an in-canon level. It would be a tragic ending, but with some obvious hanging plot threads (the fate of Vader's two children being a key one). A lot of details about what Emperor Palpatine's reign will be like is left to speculation.

But Star Wars Episode III's ending works well as a stopping point, from which the original trilogy can build off of.

My hope is that, in time, PMMM will get a continuation with a firmer/more elaborate resolution, and Rebellion will just seem like Star Wars Episode III. The rise of Darth Homura, and the revenge on the Incubators.

I'll give you that, but none of that explains the "Why didn't Bebe drop the act" problem.

Bebe is just following Madoka and Sayaka's lead.

Hell, what about when Sayaka saved Homura and half-explained things? Why not have come all the way forward? At the very least, go, "Actually, it's Kyubey. And we know what he's planning, and how to beat him."

Because the way Homura was acting, she'd then immediately go hunt down Kyubey (much like she had just done with BeBe). This is probably the last thing that Sayaka wanted, given what occurred in this movie when Homura starting talking with Kyubey.

I think that Sayaka was trying to get Homura to cool her jets and be patient. To this end, she talked about how this fake world was not that bad, which is partly about saying "stop panicking already, you don't have to be so desperate to break out of this fake world."

This might have been the wrong approach on Sayaka's part, but I can see why she made it.

It also doesn't explain why Madoka had to have her own memories erased.

Like I wrote - "Madoka gets to literally forget all about being Madokami, a great way to get a break from it."

Do you mind elaborating? I enjoy discussing things with you and would like more than a "No" to my points.

Well first you'd have to tell me why you think Soul Gem world is a huge narrative problem in the work on a thematic and storytelling level. You seem to be objecting to the very concept here. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the concept. It's an interesting one to explore, and I don't see how it inherently contradicts any of the themes or storytelling already established in Madoka Magica.

[Witch of Uncertainty]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

...Hell, i'm kind of curious why Mami even suspected her enough to put a ribbon on her foot. She changed her look and asked how she and Bebe became friends. ...and uh. So? Both of those are innocent enough. Does Mami just casually stalk everyone she knows, or something? Is she...ohoho...overly attached?

I assumed that Mami has always kept her ribbon on Homura, just because the nature of her magic. It's incredibly dangerous if she went rogue, so she'd always keep an invisible ribbon on her since the day they met.

I agree with you that the story was not as good as it could have been. I, for one, did not really enjoy the super happy beginning, and felt it lasted for much longer than needed. The ending does bother me a bit, but I still very much liked it. How Homura will do anything, even trample on Madokas wish, in order to protect her. She contradicts herself by telling Sayaka that she would never allow the witch barrier to exist, because it wasted Madokas wish, but then later told Madoka that she would bear any sin in order to meet her again (I mean this as a good thing).

While Homura never fought the girls in the anime, she showed she was capable of it, and said to Mami that she didn't want to, but was willing to fight her if she didn't stop trying to convince Madoka. She was also willing to fight both Sakura and Sayaka, and threatened to kill Sayaka when she was starting to despair and darken her soul gem, so I didn't find it "OOC" at all that she was capable and "willing" to fight Mami, although I agree that she overreacted a bit, since there was no indication of any time limit. It could be just Homura having her eyes on the prize, though. She was certain that Bebe was the Witch, and probably wanted to "fix" the world ASAP. She has shown again and again that she doesn't really care about anything but Madoka.

And didn't Madoka spread her memories because of the incubators? She was the only one that never had existed, so their eyes were fixed on her, while Sayaka and Bebe could enter the barrier without being noticed because they had existed in this world. Had they found out about Madoka, they would probably have done their thing (trapped her, used her, I dunno) immediately, but since they knew nothing of her, and she seemed perfectly normal, they ended up just wanting to study her.

[Triple_R]

While I do hope for a sequel, I have thought of a way that those of us who dislike Rebellion's ending can still find value in it.


If we don't get a sequel, I will probably end up viewing Rebellion as an ultimately sad but effective Greek tragedy of epic proportions. One positive is that it could be viewed as an excellent cautionary tale, conveying many core ideas, such as...

1) Decisions and opinions need to be based on a well-informed mind. Those lacking critical information are much more likely to make bad choices or voice incomplete/inaccurate opinions.

2) Going it alone and acting impulsively will undermine even the sharpest of minds and the most dedicated of hearts.

3) Nobody can ever truly know another person 100%. No matter how much you love and care about another person, you do not know that person 100%. So you are not in a position to be making decisions for that person.

4) Never get overly confident. Even the mightiest can be overwhelmed, and even the smartest can be surprised.

[AuraTwilight]

I disagree. Mere cosmetic changes alone are not the best way for displaying character changes. They can nicely accentuate them, or symbolically reinforce them, but I think that there should be concrete character actions that also display character changes.

Besides, they should go extra far in making Homura's character changes clear because Homura is going to be going extra far in this movie - Farther than she's ever gone before.

So I don't think that Homura's dialogue alone is sufficient for showing how her character has changed. I mean, we're use to hearing Homura speak in cool and/or desperate tones. But, as you yourself pointed out, her getting into a lengthy fight with another Puella Magi really is different for her. It suggests that her character is undergoing greater changes this time than before. Which nicely foreshadows Homura's choices to come.

Fair point, atleast; but I don't believe they made a good enough demonstration of Homura's shift into the person that was willing to kidnap Madokami, and the reversion in appearance should be enough to demonstrate the return of "Familiar Homura" atleast.

So what? Are you saying a fight scene only has meaning if both sides are trying to kill each other? So almost every fight scene that Superman or Batman were ever involved in is meaningless just because they tend to have strict no-kill policies?

No, but I am saying that because the characters aren't putting their all into it, the flair is even less hard to justify as being just padded eyecandy. And if they're not trying to overpower each other the way Sayaka and Kyouko are, what ARE they really trying to accomplish here?

Each blow in the Kyouko/Sayaka fight communicates something, but in the Homura/Mami fight, they're basically trying to avoid each other's gunfire in an almost pointless endurance test. Mami's trap to capture Homura doesn't rely on making Homura run out of ammunition; just the opposite, in fact.

And I don't know WHAT Homura is doing, because a lot of her gun-fire isn't conductive to breaking free of Mami's ties and she's demonstratably not trying to hurt or incapacitate her. For Homura, fighting Mami is literally a distraction from her original goal, and it doesn't tell us much of anything about the characters and it doesn't seem necessary for the important dialog they have AFTERwards.

Homura's discussion with Mami is basically prompted by Mami binding her up out of surprise, but she could have literally done just that before the fight even started; she's done it before. The fight is just eye-candy. And yes, it's really, really badass, and I'm not objecting to it being in the movie, but I am objecting to it taking up airtime if it's not necessary when other scenes and developments go UNDERdeveloped. Does that make sense? The fight isn't itself a problem, it's a victim of the directing.

If I was aware that I was in a false world, one in which most people are faceless, and where I went through the creepy stuff that Homura and Kyouko did, I might be very desperate to get out myself. So I think Homura has good reason for being as desperate as she is.

Right, but she herself tells Kyouko that rash actions aren't just unnecessary but also detrimental. She's not under the clock like with Walpurgis, the entire scenario is utterly harmless so long as she's not rocking the boat, so she wants to subtly investigate on her own.

Which, you know, is fair. If she actually acted on it. But then she disregards her own advice literally in less than 5 minutes. It is literally the very next thing that she does, and it doesn't feel organic to her character. A point can be made about her crippling need to be overly independent and her blatant hypocrisy but if she really believes what she was saying then she's putting Madoka in danger unnecessarily and I refuse to accept Homura could ever intentionally do that, no matter how desperate.

She does what the plot needs her to do, not what her personality dictates she would do.

This movie is showing some of the ways they've changed as people - Sayaka, for example, displays a lot more coolness and confidence here than she did in the TV series, which I think reflects her and Madoka being a bit overconfident about the whole situation and hence taking questionable risks. So I think the character's actions make sense when you consider how they've changed. I will grant you, though, that what has caused these changes is sometimes left to viewer speculation. In Sayaka's case, I can only guess that feeling like you're backed up by an actual God-like being that's also your best friend might give you a lot of confidence.

Hilariously enough, Sayaka is probably the one character I feel the most alright with, characterization-wise, besides Mami and Kyouko (who are entirely blameless by way of benign mind-rape).

It didn't for me. I didn't take that from the opening scenes at all. Now I knew things wouldn't stay this bright and cheery for the entire movie - The trailers alone made that obvious. But I wasn't assuming the whole purpose here was tonal contrast. So I can really say that I think Novasylum's argument is wrong. That viewers shouldn't just assume that the opening scenes of this movie is just about setting the stage for a tonal contrast.

I think I see the disconnect. You're using the word 'just' as if the two reasons are mutually exclusive. I've been acting as if both possibilities are valid or even complementary. Really, it doesn't fully matter to me.

If we get a sequel, then the full narrative is more than a movie trilogy alone.

The movie can stand on it's own merits. Certain basic things are made clear. I don't think it makes for a satisfying final ending, but I do think it's a reasonably good stopping point.

I would compare it to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. That wouldn't work that well as a final ending at an in-canon level. It would be a tragic ending, but with some obvious hanging plot threads (the fate of Vader's two children being a key one). A lot of details about what Emperor Palpatine's reign will be like is left to speculation.

But Star Wars Episode III's ending works well as a stopping point, from which the original trilogy can build off of.

My hope is that, in time, PMMM will get a continuation with a firmer/more elaborate resolution, and Rebellion will just seem like Star Wars Episode III. The rise of Darth Homura, and the revenge on the Incubators.

The problem is that they're not even sure if they'll make a sequel, and they left their ending incomplete. I'm fine with sequel hooks, but don't leave the current situation undefined. Why is Homura worth morally opposing, and why is she justified? Neither of these questions are adequately explained. The ending of the TV series didn't really leave any important questions unresolved. You could make sequels to it, but it was also complete on it's own merits.

Rebellion simply is not. It's not. If it gets a sequel of it's own, fine. But it's not a guaranteed thing according to Shinbo.

Bebe is just following Madoka and Sayaka's lead.

And uh...Bebe wasn't given any contingency instructions for something like this? There's a difference between going along with Homura's own delusions and then outright lying to her face. How is Homura supposed to trust her if it comes time to reveal things to her?

For god's sake, they all know what he's like, why the hell would they let things fall so that KYUBEY is the one to break the news to Homura? That is the most irresponsible thing ever when you're trying to give someone spiritual salvation and emotional peace of mind, holy crap.

Like, is the movie trying to tell me that Madoka is a goddamn idiot?

Because the way Homura was acting, she'd then immediately go hunt down Kyubey (much like she had just done with BeBe). This is probably the last thing that Sayaka wanted, given what occurred in this movie when Homura starting talking with Kyubey.

I think that Sayaka was trying to get Homura to cool her jets and be patient. To this end, she talked about how this fake world was not that bad, which is partly about saying "stop panicking already, you don't have to be so desperate to break out of this fake world."

This might have been the wrong approach on Sayaka's part, but I can see why she made it.

Maybe she would have, but Sayaka atleast had the foresight to try and block Homura's attempts to stop time.

You know what, let's back up. Sayaka and Nagisa are totally working in concert; Nagisa's probably the one who brought Sayaka to the scene, right? She's unaccounted for by a couple minutes while Homura's tied up. So...whyyyyy separate the two and give them separate talks? Sayaka clearly knew she had to keep Homura from doing something rash as she demonstrates by swording her shield-gears.

Why not leave her bound up, then be like "Surprise, you thought it was Charlotte, but it was Sayaka-chan!('s friend Nagisa)" Then both of them explain EXACTLY what is going on. Mami clearly was able to handle it, and Homura would be fine as long as you can keep her from running off and being an idiot.

"Yo Homura-dawg Kyubey's being a jerk again. We're inside your mind and he's trying to turn you into a Witch to catch Madoka but it's totally alright because we're angelic super-geniuses from heaven and we got this crap figured out. Do this and do that and Kyubey is powerless to do anything and everything is fine."

Like I wrote - "Madoka gets to literally forget all about being Madokami, a great way to get a break from it."

Nagisa and Sayaka didn't need amnesia in order to take a break, why would Madoka? Her omniscience is apparently blocked anyway.

Well first you'd have to tell me why you think Soul Gem world is a huge narrative problem in the work on a thematic and storytelling level. You seem to be objecting to the very concept here. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the concept. It's an interesting one to explore, and I don't see how it inherently contradicts any of the themes or storytelling already established in Madoka Magica.

I thought Novasylum and I touched on this; it's problematic because it rewrites everyone's characters and personalities artificially by way of mind control and memory-wiping, then has Homura act on these characterizations and draws conclusions that are, at best, a flanderization of her character from the anime taken to an emotionally desperate extreme.

The movie is trying to make whatever point it wants to make with Point C (Rebellion's ending and onward), but to get there from point A (the end of the anime), we needed to detour through point B (Soul Gem World).

Point C does not follow from Point A organically. It requires artificially rewriting several important characters into saying and doing things they otherwise wouldn't do because it's not who they are and it's not what they've learned. The Madoka that Homura talks to is not the Madoka who sacrificed herself, and it's not the Madoka who learned the courage to do what's right even if it inconveniences your loved ones.

It's a Madoka who, instead of taking courage and values instilled in her by her family and friends to self-actualize and be tremendous and change the world, uses them as personal shackles. She'd never do something that would make them sad, it's alright, don't cry.

These are two different characters. Even if the plot says they are a single fundamental soul, they are two divergent Madokas that come from their origin point with different memories and life experiences.

Homura's final actions in the movie are based on what a false Madoka said. She kidnapped the real Madoka and effectively broke her into pieces so that she can have, literally, her dream Madoka.

It also means that Homura has learned absolutely nothing from the ending of the anime, or at the very least that she's forgotten it. Which she very well might have.

These characters are not who they are in Rebellion because of who they were in the anime. They were changed by magic. They were literally turned into different iterations of the same people by a supernatural force that reached in and fiddled with their brains.

It's almost like the writers just stuck their Hands of God in and fuddled around with them manually. Huh.

And didn't Madoka spread her memories because of the incubators? She was the only one that never had existed, so their eyes were fixed on her, while Sayaka and Bebe could enter the barrier without being noticed because they had existed in this world. Had they found out about Madoka, they would probably have done their thing (trapped her, used her, I dunno) immediately, but since they knew nothing of her, and she seemed perfectly normal, they ended up just wanting to study her.

So why couldn't she have faked it? The only thing Kyubey implies is that he wants to see her use her God Powers, and then he'll do something about that later on. Even if she has to spread her power for the above reasons, she doesn't have to spread her memories too. They're different things.

What do you think about Redditor SohumB's almost-as-lengthy response below? I'm particularly taken with these passages...

"Together, they counter each other, and that is the point. Together, the show and Rebellion are cyclical, present the two halves of the argument, only picking sides ever so slightly. Together, the combined show acknowledges that hey, this problem is hard, and there are no easy answers, and even the hard answers aren't answers but we have to pick one anyway."

"You could argue that the characters are inconsistent (but I think Homura gets to reach for selflessness in Madoka's story, and Madoka gets to reach for selfishness in Homura's story, and that this is also part of the point. That one story happens chronologically after the other one feels more like an unfortunate artifact rather than an argument to me.) You could argue that the story logic doesn't work (but let's be honest here, story logic was never Madoka Magica's forte.) You could argue that this is too depressing, that Madoka was humanity-affirming in a strong way and that this ruins that and they shouldn't have presented the second half of the argument...

...but would you have liked the show if it had presented the Rebellion half first?"

As Novasylum put it, the prequel is already the best counter-argument to the sequel's argument. If they were flipped around, the sequel would still be better than the prequel. ...Or probably not have been made at all, because Rebellion really relies on a lot of the built-in fan attachment instead of wowing people on it's own merits. We came into that movie already big fans of the characters and the setting and it didn't need to win us over.

And the anime is STILL better-directed on a technical level.

and lastly,

"So yea, the indulgence. To a certain degree, it is necessary - though we don't know it at the time, every depiction of how life is in False Mitikahara is about what Homura wants and can't accept. But let's not fool ourselves; you're right in that there's well more and more indulgent such devices than is necessary in any way, and there are no justifications for the audience shift.

Even so, what intrigues me more is that what Homura wants (but can't have (but takes anyway)) is directly identified with what the fans wanted. That could totally be cultural commentary, in a very Database Animal sort of way - the otaku culture of re-appropriation is identified with an idealised dream, in a movie that doesn't think idealised dreams are silly? Huh. Huh."

Sounds like a whole lotta bullcrap. All this really means is that the writers absorbed the fandom's desires into themselves because they unironically want to write more adventures with the girls-as-objects, girls-as-messages be damned.

As Novaslyum put it, Shinbo was too attached to Sayaka-the-object to let Sayaka-the-narrative have the well-earned conclusion she deserves. They did what was best for themselves and not what was best for the story.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Fair point, atleast; but I don't believe they made a good enough demonstration of Homura's shift into the person that was willing to kidnap Madokami,

Maybe not by that alone, but what we saw Homura undergo during her witchification was also a good hint of what was to come. The white chair-on-green grass scene where Madoka stands up in a cross formation and then falls over, going splat into a pile of goo. That scene was very powerful and telling, in my opinion.

It tells me that Homura has been deeply traumatized by losing Madoka, and so Homura, at some level, hates how Madoka sacrificed herself for the sake of other puella magi.

No, but I am saying that because the characters aren't putting their all into it, the flair is even less hard to justify as being just padded eyecandy. And if they're not trying to overpower each other the way Sayaka and Kyouko are, what ARE they really trying to accomplish here?

Homura is trying to get Mami out of the way (as non-lethally as possible) so that Homura can get back to dealing with Bebe. Homura is in fact trying to shoot Mami down.

I think that Mami wants to question Homura. But Mami is an inherently gentle soul who would rather handle things in a way that shows as much respect as possible to her fellow puella magi. So I think that Mami would prefer to question Homura without completely ensnaring Homura into a bunch of ribbons. Mami makes her presence known, and then waits for Homura to make the next move. If Homura tries to explain herself and talk things out with Mami, great, that's what Mami wants. Homura instead leaps into action, and so the fight is on.

At this point, Mami's aim is to win the fight without killing Homura, and to wrap Homura into a bunch of ribbons in order to force Homura into answering her (because Homura implicitly refused the gentler option).

Now, to be fair, the fight isn't without its weaknesses. It obviously isn't the most realistic of action scenes. Sayaka vs. Kyouko is in fact a much more realistic fight, so I can honestly understand a person preferring it to Homura vs. Mami even though Homura vs. Mami is a much greater treat for the eyes.

And yes, it's really, really badass, and I'm not objecting to it being in the movie, but I am objecting to it taking up airtime if it's not necessary when other scenes and developments go UNDERdeveloped. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. But consider the following.

The entire fight scene is up on YouTube last I checked. The entire fight is less than 6 minutes. And that's even including Homura and Mami's discussion after the fight, and Sayaka intervening to cut Homura free.

I honestly don't think this is overly long for the highlight fight scene of a movie involving colorfully-attired girls with magical super-powers.

Right, but she herself tells Kyouko that rash actions aren't just unnecessary but also detrimental.

This is Homura's logical mind conflicting with her desperate heart. In other words, Homura is saying this to try to convince herself of that moreso than convince Kyouko of it. I think that Homura's logical mind is saying "Taking rash actions might endanger Madoka", but her heart is saying "If my hesitation ever led to Madoka getting hurt, I could never forgive myself." Deep down inside, I think Homura's feeling is this - I'd rather fail while doing everything I possibly can than fail due to taking a more cautious approach.

Why is Homura worth morally opposing, and why is she justified? Neither of these questions are adequately explained.

Homura is worth morally opposing because her actions involve denying the free will of others to the point of using mind-wipes and even changing their personal histories. There's also good reason to suspect that Homura's actions have seriously messed up the world, but this is admittedly a bit speculative.

Homura is justified because she probably really did think this would be for the best for Madoka, and hey, Sayaka and Nagisa do get a second chance at having a full human life. Hitomi and Kyousuke have less to feel badly about now, and Madoka/Sayaka's families get their daughter back. Also, the Incubator threat has seemingly been taken care of.

Most debates over Homura's actions boil down to the above. It's certainly not totally comprehensive, but it's something at least.

And uh...Bebe wasn't given any contingency instructions for something like this?

Because Bebe had grown very attached to Mami, it was probably felt that it would be best if Bebe alone broke the truth to Mami when the time came. However, Sayaka probably felt she should handle the rest.

For god's sake, they all know what he's like, why the hell would they let things fall so that KYUBEY is the one to break the news to Homura? That is the most irresponsible thing ever when you're trying to give someone spiritual salvation and emotional peace of mind, holy crap.

Like, is the movie trying to tell me that Madoka is a goddamn idiot?

What, you mean the Madoka that failed to tell Sayaka that Mami had Homura tied up prior to Mami getting killed by Charlotte? You mean the Madoka who, upon seeing Sayaka confronted by Homura and Kyouko, decided that the best way to help Sayaka was to throw Sayaka's soul gem off of a bridge and into oncoming traffic?

Madoka has her moments of ingenuity (her wish) but she can make some very dumb mistakes sometimes.

Madoka and Sayaka made some big mistakes in this movie, no doubt about it. But last I checked, they're not exactly famed for their intellects. We're not talking L-Elf or Raito Yagami here. And that's coming from someone who likes both girls a lot, and is a big Sayaka fan.

And you're right, Sayaka and Nagisa probably should have broke the truth to Homura and Mami with all four meeting together. That was one of their mistakes.

Nagisa and Sayaka didn't need amnesia in order to take a break, why would Madoka?

Well, maybe Madoka in fact did think she couldn't keep the act up for long. Madoka has always struck me as a person that hates being deceitful.

I thought Novasylum and I touched on this; it's problematic because it rewrites everyone's characters and personalities artificially by way of mind control and memory-wiping, then has Homura act on these characterizations and draws conclusions that are, at best, a flanderization of her character from the anime taken to an emotionally desperate extreme.

Do you have a problem with amnesia as a plot device in general? Because it's a very common plot device. I don't think it's inherently illegitimate.

In this case, it lets us see the characters in a new and different context. Something fresh and interesting.

Point C does not follow from Point A organically. It requires artificially rewriting several important characters into saying and doing things they otherwise wouldn't do because it's not who they are and it's not what they've learned. The Madoka that Homura talks to is not the Madoka who sacrificed herself, and it's not the Madoka who learned the courage to do what's right even if it inconveniences your loved ones.

The Madoka that Homura talked to in the final timeline is not the Madoka who, with courage that Captain America would salute, went to her death defending Mitakihara Town from Walpurgis Night. The Madoka in the final timeline is someone who has become so fearful of witches that she becomes downright self-loathing in her cowardice over becoming a puella magi.

So what makes this character rewriting, in the original TV series, any less artificial than what we have here in the Rebellion movie? I don't see where time travel is an inherently more legitimate plot device than amnesia/mind-wipes are. If anything, amnesia is the more realistic of the two.

Homura's final actions in the movie are based on what a false Madoka said.

Homura is used to taking the words of one Madoka and applying it to a different Madoka. What Timeline 3 Madoka said to Homura greatly influenced how Homura approached final timeline Madoka.

Honestly, I can forgive Homura for attaching too much weight to what Madoka said in the flower fields scene. Homura has had so many conversations with so many different Madokas that Homura probably can't even keep them all straight any more.

As Novaslyum put it, Shinbo was too attached to Sayaka-the-object to let Sayaka-the-narrative have the well-earned conclusion she deserves.

Of all of Novaslyum's points, this is one I disagree with the most vehemently. A good character is a terrible thing to waste. A good character is more than just one specific character arc or one specific narrative. Sayaka is not so worthless a character has to be only valuable or explorable within the context of one lone narrative!

There is no need whatsoever to sideline Sayaka permanently just because of what was done in the original TV series. I strongly object to the argument that you and Novasylum are making here. There is nothing wrong with Sayaka being heavily involved in this movie. There is nothing about that which contradicts what occurred in the TV series. At least not what happens in the Soul World, since that's not even the real world.

[AuraTwilight]

Maybe not by that alone, but what we saw Homura undergo during her witchification was also a good hint of what was to come. The white chair-on-green grass scene where Madoka stands up in a cross formation and then falls over, going splat into a pile of goo. That scene was very powerful and telling, in my opinion.

It tells me that Homura has been deeply traumatized by losing Madoka, and so Homura, at some level, hates how Madoka sacrificed herself for the sake of other puella magi.

Agreed, but the thought processes of a witch also aren't entirely reliable. See: Sayaka, and how she comes to reflect on what she was upset about after being saved.

This is Homura's logical mind conflicting with her desperate heart. In other words, Homura is saying this to try to convince herself of that moreso than convince Kyouko of it. I think that Homura's logical mind is saying "Taking rash actions might endanger Madoka", but her heart is saying "If my hesitation ever led to Madoka getting hurt, I could never forgive myself." Deep down inside, I think Homura's feeling is this - I'd rather fail while doing everything I possibly can than fail due to taking a more cautious approach.

It'd be really awesome if they put that in there, then, since Homura was monologuing to the audience the whole damn movie, lol.

Homura is worth morally opposing because her actions involve denying the free will of others to the point of using mind-wipes and even changing their personal histories. There's also good reason to suspect that Homura's actions have seriously messed up the world, but this is admittedly a bit speculative.

Homura is justified because she probably really did think this would be for the best for Madoka, and hey, Sayaka and Nagisa do get a second chance at having a full human life. Hitomi and Kyousuke have less to feel badly about now, and Madoka/Sayaka's families get their daughter back. Also, the Incubator threat has seemingly been taken care of.

Most debates over Homura's actions boil down to the above. It's certainly not totally comprehensive, but it's something at least.

Right, but counterpoint: Let's assume the most optimistic interpretation of Homura's universe: That the Law of Cycles still functions how it should, Madoka's just not in charge of it anymore. So...what's the moral impetus for Madoka to awaken and return to it?

We can't properly have a philosophical or moral discussion about the ending like the creators probably want because they haven't developed the setting enough. The end of the anime gave us enough details that we had a complete before and after image of which to evaluate the moral weight of Madoka's decision. We don't even know what Homura did beyond making Madoka into a human.

What, you mean the Madoka that failed to tell Sayaka that Mami had Homura tied up prior to Mami getting killed by Charlotte? You mean the Madoka who, upon seeing Sayaka confronted by Homura and Kyouko, decided that the best way to help Sayaka was to throw Sayaka's soul gem off of a bridge and into oncoming traffic?

This is also a Madoka that isn't atleast SORT'VE Omniscient (let's not go there), hadn't understood the facts of the situation from an outside perspective, and doesn't yet have the courage and strength of will to do anything about it or believe her decisions mattered.

Not entirely comparable to the Madoka that entered Homura's soul gem. Speaking of Soul Gems, there was seriously no way Madoka could've known about the lich thing. You can't blame that on her intelligence.

Madoka and Sayaka made some big mistakes in this movie, no doubt about it. But last I checked, they're not exactly famed for their intellects. We're not talking L-Elf or Raito Yagami here. And that's coming from someone who likes both girls a lot, and is a big Sayaka fan.

And you're right, Sayaka and Nagisa probably should have broke the truth to Homura and Mami with all four meeting together. That was one of their mistakes.

It'd be nice, then, if the movie acknowledged their mistakes. Like if Sayaka, during her "We're here for you speech" said something like "Well, she deserves a reward. Especially since this is partly my fault" or something.

Do you have a problem with amnesia as a plot device in general? Because it's a very common plot device. I don't think it's inherently illegitimate.

In this case, it lets us see the characters in a new and different context. Something fresh and interesting.

I'm fine with it as a plot device; I'm not fine when it takes up an entire narrative to the point that you never really see the familiar character get to say or do anything with their proper mindset.

It'd be like if you revealed that a long-thought dead character actually survived....for such crippling amnesia that they had a new name, personality, life, and identity that they've been living with for 12 years and their memories and emotions will never return because of brain damage or something.

The above might be a neat enough twist, but I sure as hell wouldn't advertise it as the "Return of your favorite character!" movie.

The Madoka that Homura talked to in the final timeline is not the Madoka who, with courage that Captain America would salute, went to her death defending Mitakihara Town from Walpurgis Night. The Madoka in the final timeline is someone who has become so fearful of witches that she becomes downright self-loathing in her cowardice over becoming a puella magi.

So what makes this character rewriting, in the original TV series, any less artificial than what we have here in the Rebellion movie? I don't see where time travel is an inherently more legitimate plot device than amnesia/mind-wipes are. If anything, amnesia is the more realistic of the two.

Because Homura created this one. The memories of this Madoka that she is talking to in this scene are HER creation as a result of the witch barrier, and her thoughts and opinions based on those memories are thus also Homura's own doing. Despite what Homura might be convincing herself to believe, this is indeed a Madoka of her own making.

Atleast with all those other Madokas, she got to know them over a month from the same starting point as the original Madoka. They're atleast cut from the same cloth.

Homura is used to taking the words of one Madoka and applying it to a different Madoka. What Timeline 3 Madoka said to Homura greatly influenced how Homura approached final timeline Madoka.

Honestly, I can forgive Homura for attaching too much weight to what Madoka said in the flower fields scene. Homura has had so many conversations with so many different Madokas that Homura probably can't even keep them all straight any more.

The difference is that Homura had character development since thatp oint (or SHOULD have, atleast), and now instead of having countless equally real Madokas across timespace, there's a single, cosmic, platonic ideal of Madoka and this dream Madoka in her head.

Of all of Novaslyum's points, this is one I disagree with the most vehemently. A good character is a terrible thing to waste. A good character is more than just one specific character arc or one specific narrative. Sayaka is not so worthless a character has to be only valuable or explorable within the context of one lone narrative!

There is no need whatsoever to sideline Sayaka permanently just because of what was done in the original TV series. I strongly object to the argument that you and Novasylum are making here. There is nothing wrong with Sayaka being heavily involved in this movie. There is nothing about that which contradicts what occurred in the TV series. At least not what happens in the Soul World, since that's not even the real world.

Agreed about Soul World, and Rebellion in general. I'm mostly concerned about the precedent being set and might be done with her in the future.

And while I do agree you can tell more stories with Sayaka, as a professional writer I have to stress that it is possible to waste a good character by using them too much.

When you use a character that is defined by Insert Narrative Arc and Themes here (which Sayaka is, you cannot deny this), you CAN expand on them, so long as it doesn't undermine the original core of the character-as-narrative. The character shouldn't be divorced from the context of their greatness in such a way that it negates that original context as mattering. Sayaka coming back to life with her memories rewritten is, at the very least, REALLY stepping on the edge of a dangerous zone.

I personally think Sayaka coming back to make up with Kyouko and demonstrate that Magical Girls become badass angels is totally rad and awesome. This is cool, go for it! Bringing her back to life and resetting her to square one (where she blindly vows to oppose the evil Homura without trying to understand her, sound familiar?) is....very dangerous.

Of course, I already think this sort of thing is unnecessary because I dislike Homucifer in it's entirety anyway, but like, you know. Madoka made a very powerful moral decision by saying she could save Sayaka, but it'd mean undoing her wish. UNDOING HER CHOICES.

And at the end of it all, Sayaka was happy and fulfilled, regretting nothing about what she'd done and glad that Madoka respected her decisions.

Homura not only overturned her decisions and brought her back to life, but Kyousuke is also healed anyway. Apparently Homura can have her cake and eat it too because Shinbo and Urobuchi said so. Whatever, Sayaka, enjoy.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Agreed, but the thought processes of a witch also aren't entirely reliable. See: Sayaka, and how she comes to reflect on what she was upset about after being saved.

I don't see a contradiction between Episode 12 Sayaka and Octavia. I just see a "glass half-full vs. glass half-empty" division. But both are sincere reflections on that glass.

It'd be really awesome if they put that in there, then, since Homura was monologuing to the audience the whole damn movie, lol.

I think part of what we're seeing in disagreements on this film is a sort of sliding scale over "How much should be left to viewer interpretation"? This movie leaves a lot to viewer interpretation. It leaves a bit more to that than what I'd personally like. That being said, I do like leaving some things to viewer interpretation and speculation.

I'm glad that Homura is not easy to totally figure out. I think that's a strength and not a weakness, especially given that she's the main character of this movie and given how much of this movie is one big Homura character study.

Putting aside very straightforward aesops, I think that the ideal fictional narrative has enough tightness to give viewers some degree of a shared frame of reference, but also enough flexibility for there to be real room for conflicting interpretations/speculations. I don't think that Rebellion completely hits "the sweet spot" here, and I think it errs a bit on the flexibility side, but I don't think it's way off in no-man's land either.

A bit more/better script-editing probably would have been good, but I think it is possible to go too far in spelling everything out in painstaking detail. You can go so far in that direction that there's basically nothing left to discuss or wonder about.

Right, but counterpoint: Let's assume the most optimistic interpretation of Homura's universe: That the Law of Cycles still functions how it should, Madoka's just not in charge of it anymore. So...what's the moral impetus for Madoka to awaken and return to it?

Denying a person's free will, and mind-wiping people, are still morally dubious acts.

Even in a best-case scenario, there are clear down-sides and unsettling aspects to what Homura has done here.

This is also a Madoka that isn't atleast SORT'VE Omniscient (let's not go there), hadn't understood the facts of the situation from an outside perspective, and doesn't yet have the courage and strength of will to do anything about it or believe her decisions mattered.

Sure, but knowledge and intelligence are two different things. But being abundant in one may cause you to overestimate yourself in the other area. I think that's exactly what happened with Madoka and Sayaka. Madoka had all this knowledge, so Madoka and Sayaka felt that they were literally unbeatable. And when people overestimate their standing and/or abilities, they tend to take risks that they shouldn't be taking.

Speaking of Soul Gems, there was seriously no way Madoka could've known about the lich thing. You can't blame that on her intelligence.

That's not why I considered her Soul Gem chucking dumb. Person A's friend has a gun, and is being confronted by two other people holding guns. Person A decides that the best way to help out her friend is to grab her gun, and to throw it over a bridge, effectively disarming her friend. Person A's friend is now unarmed, and being confronted by two people holding guns, and one of those two people previously tried to kill Person A's friend.

I think it's clear why Person A's actions here are dumb.

The lich thing honestly has nothing to do with it at all.

It'd be nice, then, if the movie acknowledged their mistakes. Like if Sayaka, during her "We're here for you speech" said something like "Well, she deserves a reward. Especially since this is partly my fault" or something.

You might be right here. This is one area where I could see value in more/better script-editing.

I'm fine with it as a plot device; I'm not fine when it takes up an entire narrative to the point that you never really see the familiar character get to say or do anything with their proper mindset.

That's a fair point. I can understand you feeling a bit "cheated" when it comes to this. This is also another reason why I want to see a sequel at some point.

I really want to see Madoka regain her memories. I find it very interesting to think about how a fully-informed Madoka will react to all of this.

Because Homura created this one.

Are we nothing more than the sum of our memories? If so, I don't see why Madoka would willingly engage in the outright self-nullification needed in order to give Sayaka all of her memories. I mean, Madoka is not suicidal. So Madoka herself seems to think that people are more than just the sum of their memories, and given what you think of Madoka's knowledge level, should we really be questioning that?

So, long story short, I don't think that Homura created this Madoka. This is the real Madoka, just with different memories. But having different memories doesn't completely change who she is.

I personally think Sayaka coming back to make up with Kyouko and demonstrate that Magical Girls become badass angels is totally rad and awesome. This is cool, go for it! Bringing her back to life and resetting her to square one (where she blindly vows to oppose the evil Homura without trying to understand her, sound familiar?) is....very dangerous.

I honestly don't get why you and novasylum consider her opposition to Homura "blind".

What's "blind" about being opposed to somebody who you know has drastically altered your mind, and that you can sense has taken away something from you that you valued? Such opposition is just a perfectly normal human reaction, in my view. It's not something to be faulted. I don't see it as a character regression whatsoever, and I truly don't get why you and novasylum seem to see it that way.

And trying to understand another person is all well and good, but if somebody invades your person to the point that they're altering your mind against your will, then I think the act itself is so severe that the intention behind it takes a bit of a backseat.

Of course, I already think this sort of thing is unnecessary because I dislike Homucifer in it's entirety anyway, but like, you know. Madoka made a very powerful moral decision by saying she could save Sayaka, but it'd mean undoing her wish. UNDOING HER CHOICES.

And at the end of it all, Sayaka was happy and fulfilled, regretting nothing about what she'd done and glad that Madoka respected her decisions.

Homura not only overturned her decisions and brought her back to life, but Kyousuke is also healed anyway. Apparently Homura can have her cake and eat it too because Shinbo and Urobuchi said so. Whatever, Sayaka, enjoy.

I get where you're coming from here.

Which is partly why I'm inclined to think there's downsides here beyond what's plainly obvious. Gen doesn't strike me as the sort of writer to let his major protagonists "have their cake and eat it too". That's partly why I think some of the disturbing imagery in the very ending of the movie is pointing towards real problems in Homura!world.

[LightDragonman]

So some critics of the show and this movie say that the characters are poor as they are apparently defined by one cardboard characteristic, have no real attributes or value, and their depth is made up by the fans overanalyzing them when they have none.

What say you in response?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by LightDragonman

So some critics of the show and this movie say that the characters are poor as they are apparently defined by one cardboard characteristic, have no real attributes or value, and their depth is made up by the fans overanalyzing them when they have none.

What say you in response?

It's a cheap and flimsy criticism unless they can quote the author himself saying things that run counter to the supposed "overanalyzing".

And I haven't read any Gen or Shinbo quotes/interviews that significantly contradict the analysis that people like AuraTwilight and I have made of these characters.

Just because these critics failed to pick up on the characterization points that us "overanalyzers" noticed doesn't mean they're not there.

[AuraTwilight]

Denying a person's free will, and mind-wiping people, are still morally dubious acts.

Even in a best-case scenario, there are clear down-sides and unsettling aspects to what Homura has done here.

Right, but like...if Madoka awakens, hypothetically, and this current universe is JUST AS GOOD, despite the morally reprehensible things done to create it, would Madoka still become a goddess again? What would compel her to? What is the actual RISK here, on Homura's part?

Madoka's not going to throw herself into the pyre without a substantial gain, she spent literally the entire anime learning this fact and if she doesn't act on it any sequels from here on out are basically garbage with no respect for the characters.

What problem will Madoka ascend for? If the Law of Cycles is still working, then it doesn't need her after having established it. If it doesn't work, then what happens to Magical Girls? Homura's dialog implies that it's functioning enough to prevent witches, atleast.

These are questions that are unnecessary distractions from the real 'point' of the ending (Homura's and Madoka's philosophical clash, the selfish/selfless love parallels and whatnot). So...why weren't they answered, aside from laziness and/or making room for other things and/or "we don't know lol"? (btw these are all bad reasons)

That's not why I considered her Soul Gem chucking dumb. Person A's friend has a gun, and is being confronted by two other people holding guns. Person A decides that the best way to help out her friend is to grab her gun, and to throw it over a bridge, effectively disarming her friend. Person A's friend is now unarmed, and being confronted by two people holding guns, and one of those two people previously tried to kill Person A's friend.

I think it's clear why Person A's actions here are dumb.

The lich thing honestly has nothing to do with it at all.

Alright this isn't an entirely valid analogy though because Madoka believes (and is correct to believe) that Kyoko wouldn't literally beat up or kill a defenseless person.

Also, you know, Kyubey totally manipulated the timing of this event, so she had all of 5 seconds to decide to do anything at all and she was panicking.

You don't get to panic when you exist out of time/space and therefore have infinity time to think of what to do.

Are we nothing more than the sum of our memories? If so, I don't see why Madoka would willingly engage in the outright self-nullification needed in order to give Sayaka all of her memories. I mean, Madoka is not suicidal. So Madoka herself seems to think that people are more than just the sum of their memories, and given what you think of Madoka's knowledge level, should we really be questioning that?

So, long story short, I don't think that Homura created this Madoka. This is the real Madoka, just with different memories. But having different memories doesn't completely change who she is.

Well, of course it's still "her." The fundamental essence of Madoka, given these memories, WOULD give this answer.

But those memories are still fabricated, and that undermines the entire Madoka construct. What if we took you, and your loving parents, and without altering your fundamental self in any way, rewrote all your personal memories of your parents into being maliciously abusive?

"What do you think of your parents, Triple_R?"
"They're total dicks, I hate them."

Nature/Nurture isn't even relevant; the Madoka Homura is talking to has never, EVER been put in a position where she would have to consider the severely heavy decision of sacrificing her happy life to do a supremely good thing only she can do.

Oh, and Homura basically lied, even if only accidentally. The whole "I had a dream" stuff aside, she doesn't mention that the Madoka in her scenario left to save countless people, and that this same Madoka assured her they would meet again.

She said she went somewhere Homura could never go, and never mentioned a reason why. This Madoka in the flower field probably imagined a literal move to like, the States or something, and said outright that she would never do something to hurt people.

Especially since she's not being given a reason for why she might.

Madoka's words in this scene are completely and totally worthless and without meaning or insight into the true Madoka at all. Homura's just engaging in confirmation bias to justify her feelings and actions.

And even if that's understandable, one can make a very good argument that this is a downgrade from how she was in the anime's conclusion.

I honestly don't get why you and novasylum consider her opposition to Homura "blind".

What's "blind" about being opposed to somebody who you know has drastically altered your mind, and that you can sense has taken away something from you that you valued? Such opposition is just a perfectly normal human reaction, in my view. It's not something to be faulted. I don't see it as a character regression whatsoever, and I truly don't get why you and novasylum seem to see it that way.

And trying to understand another person is all well and good, but if somebody invades your person to the point that they're altering your mind against your will, then I think the act itself is so severe that the intention behind it takes a bit of a backseat.

Right, Sayaka's justified once Homura's rewriting her brain and stuff, I don't disagree, but it's still a step-backwards for everyone involved.

It doesn't matter that the plot's justifying it, because the plot is part of the problem. Instead of the characters advancing and using what they learned, they're resetting to the dynamic they originally had. Sayaka's going to hate on Homura without knowing why she hates her and being all aggressive and hostile and not really willing to listen to her, and Homura's going to milk the Dark Magical Girl trope for all it's worth, not confide in anyone, or bother justifying herself to anyone.

Homura didn't learn a goddamn thing from everyone working together to save her in this movie. She sure as hell didn't learn anything from episode 12 of the anime, despite acting like she did.

She didn't learn anything at all. She doubled down on her initial character so hard she became a caricature of herself resembling the stalker yandere lesbian with madoka-panties on her head from every joke doujin ever. Especially poigant since you yourself complain that sequels shouldn't just rehash old ground.

Especially poigant that Urobuchi and Shinbo wanted to portray this as a movie where Homura evolves and grows instead of being a static character. They might have tried to do that, but they only succeeded in undoing whatever growth she did have. She took one step forward and took two steps back, and she's not even as sympathetic as she used to be because instead of fighting against an external wall of impossible adversity, the entire situation from beginning to end of this movie is basically her own doing.

The only thing I can take away from this movie is that apparently Homura is a creature of habit and is so damned insistent on continuing her Protect Madoka routine that she'll all but break her legs to do so. She's dangerously close to Yuno territory.

I get where you're coming from here.

Which is partly why I'm inclined to think there's downsides here beyond what's plainly obvious. Gen doesn't strike me as the sort of writer to let his major protagonists "have their cake and eat it too". That's partly why I think some of the disturbing imagery in the very ending of the movie is pointing towards real problems in Homura!world.

I don't doubt that. I don't doubt it at all.

I just wished they like...EXPLAINED what that meant. Guys, you completely and totally screwed us out of seeing Wraith world in-depth, atleast give us this much because now we can't trust you to actually show us Homuverse in proper detail when the next sequel rolls around.

By the way, that's the other point of my "Point B off-the-rails" bit. Madoka's universe had no narrative weight or importance in this movie. It might as well have never existed. That's bad writing.

[Sol Falling]

The reason no details about Homura's post-devilization world exist is because there aren't any. And the reason there aren't any is because Gen has no idea where the story should go from here. The original Madoka series was a unique synthesis of four creators working independently without trying to influence each other, but with an intense consciousness towards the other creators. Rebellion was a product of those creators mixing, driven and pushed back into each other by commercial and creative pressures, culminating in an open slate left for someone else to come and tie it all together again.

When Gen says he's done being the main writer for this series, I believe it. And that's because, from the beginning, Madoka Magica wasn't really his own work. As he described at one point, from the beginning Kaname Madoka was never an 'Urobochi' character, but rather an 'Aoki Ume' character. Gen had run into a wall in his own writing of being unable to believe in human happiness, of being unable to construct a (universally) happy ending within his own narratives/resulting from his own characters due to his view of human nature. Given the impetus of being faced with a collaboration with Aoki Ume (to the extent of the image of the production being influenced by her character designs), Gen wrote a story not based on his own character but his vision/conception of Aoki Ume's, and successfully constructed a narrative where the world was saved by a 'heavenly soul' acting at the cost of her personal happiness.

Iwakami, who originally conceived of the collaboration based on the cheap profit-seeking shock value of seeing Aoki Ume's character designs in bloody conflict, gave his production team creative freedom. Aoki Ume submitted herself to letting her character designs be used as the writer and director willed. Akiyuki Shinbo committed himself to adapting the script and character designs as he was given, imposing no 'directorial instructions' upon what was given to him by his team. What resulted was Madoka Magica, which succeeded by denying the cliched image which Iwakami had initially wanted to market it by.

Having written a story which was beyond himself, Gen thought it was all over. Naturally, when Iwakami and Shinbo approached him to construct a sequel driven by commercial interests (Iwakami) and a desire to do more with the characters (Shinbo), he initially resisted. Why? Because, the original story having come from outside of himself, Gen had no idea how to continue it. However, faced by the insistence of the other partners, Gen grudgingly began developing a scenario.

Upon reaching his creative limit, Gen confronted the other team members. "I don't know how to continue this." With that cue, Shinbo made the suggestion "Let Homura and Madoka become enemies", shocking Gen out of his artistic conscientiousness (originally based on the collaboration with Ume) that, like the original TV series, he had to write a happy ending.

The result: Gen was finally able to let loose and write an 'Urobochi' story. As described, Madoka Magica was the story of Madoka, an 'Aoki Ume' character. Rebellion then became the story of Homura, child of Urobochi Gen.

The uncertainty/indetermination of Rebellion's ending is the product of Gen's own uncertainty. Gen did not have an answer/was not satisfied with his internal 'Protagonist chooses their personal happiness/desires/delusion over the good of the total world' conclusions in the first place. Neither did he want to deny the original conclusion he wrote to the series, which he accomplished by stepping outside of himself. Having been asked and given permission to contradict it, Gen did so, but from the beginning Gen never had an idea of how to bring the story to a new conclusion (i.e. choose a victor or develop a compromise between Madoka and Homura). Precisely because of this, he has stepped away from writing the series. The narrative has been left open for a new author with a radical new vision to step in and wrap it up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
I) The value of the original series for me was always in how Gen transcended/denied the nihilistic worldview/conclusion which Iwakami had hired him to write. I had believed he would do so from the start, not from any familiarity with his works, but out of distaste towards the sense of cheap degeneracy with which Iwakami had initially formed his vision for the project, and a conviction that any genuine artist would not simply go along with it. If considered objectively, I do not consider that Madoka's selfless 'happy' ending is thematically actually any more legitimate/compelling than Homura's.
II) The budget and format of Rebellion allowed Shinbo the greatest freedom and opportunity to go nuts with SHAFT's spectacular style to date (and possibly ever), and on that level the movie delivered beyond all expectations. Rebellion may have been an unnecessary addition to the story of Madoka as a matter of narrative, but it has firmly established for me SHAFT's full potential as a studio and has marked for me a landmark in animation.
III) Despite the difficulty/unresolvability of the thematic/philosophical conflict Gen/Rebellion's conclusion has left us with (Selfish desire/happiness vs. Universal order/good; which force/possibility is stronger within humans), a new author/series does not even have to address it. The greatest value on a character level which Rebellion contributes is to the series lore. The idea/concept of Madoka and Homura as opposite forces of universal law/Gods is freakin' awesome. Simply as a setting, the Madoka universe now feels like a tantalizing vehicle for potentially tremendous carthasis in a brand new story focused on different themes and characters.

[woxx]

I'm more than sure there won't be a sequel with new conclusion. Considering latest Shinbo's interviews, they can make something(like slice of life) explaining this world better, but nothing important will happen again.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm sure if they make a sequel they're going to pick up with the Madoka VS Homura plothook. If they were planning to do a normal slice of life show with world-building, they would've done it after episode 12, when all the plot-threads were tied up.

[silvercover]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm sure if they make a sequel they're going to pick up with the Madoka VS Homura plothook. If they were planning to do a normal slice of life show with world-building, they would've done it after episode 12, when all the plot-threads were tied up.

while missing two of the main cast?
I kinda doubt that post ep 12 would even have material and time for the girls to have SoL.


to be honest, its going to be really hard to make an advancement of the story and create conflict without turning homura into an idiot, as unlike madoka she's got like total control over things not only related to magical girls as well as control of the incubators. just having an opposition is nearly impossible...

well, I can only think of a story like what triple R is currently considering to write as well as from the image I just posted in the image thread: have homura messing around with sayaka.
could be just my preference of the pairing but... really there's not much homura is gonna do except trying to keep madoka from remembering. and we already saw how homura annoyed mami and kyouko for no reason at all in the ending...

plus sayaka's the only one I think that homura could converse without holding back herself, and in turn it would be the only time she'd be vulnerable to some talk, albeit really slim, especially since its sayaka of all people...

the other possibility I see is sayaka and madoka manage to meet up and have their memories stir up, but as I said that's also pretty damn low especially since homura will be keeping an eye on madoka.

so yeah, what I think for a 2nd season would be homura messing with sayaka while sayaka would resist her all the way, having some debates/arguments here and there with the world.
it would go back and forth like that until either one of them, or even both, starts to consider the oppositions view.

of course, you also have the other girls fight wraiths and have SoL with them taking up scenes.

and for additional reasons of why sayaka:
she's lower than the other girls in homura's list of "friends". therefore, homura would have little inhibition for bugging sayaka and having her retain some memories (in particular, her being the "devil), so as not minding her to be an "enemy" or to oppose her, which would further give homura some more reasons to bully sayaka.
and due to sayaka also being pretty low homura's list of competency, homura may not expect her to give her problems. so in that regard, she may have a lower guard around sayaka.
and of course, sayaka pretty much being the one who was able to resist the initial change to be defiant before homura adjusted her memories and powers more. aside from madoka, sayaka's the only one who's got the sense of something wrong about homura to go against her, while mami and kyouko would just feel something off with their world at best.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by silvercover

while missing two of the main cast?
I kinda doubt that post ep 12 would even have material and time for the girls to have SoL.


to be honest, its going to be really hard to make an advancement of the story and create conflict without turning homura into an idiot, as unlike madoka she's got like total control over things not only related to magical girls as well as control of the incubators. just having an opposition is nearly impossible...

I can think of at least one way to have conflict.

Maju arise from negative human emotions. Now, can you imagine what maju may arise from a being on Homura's level having strongly negative emotions? And since these particular maju would arise directly from Homura herself, Homura may not be able to personally handle them as easily as she does the Incubators.

I think that privately feeling at odds with Madoka, and also being cut off from much in the way of human companionship, is going to eat away at Homura.