(L+CR) Golden Time

[VooDooZulu]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I like everything about this show other than the "past self" Banri pre-amnesia bit. I don't like the ghost, whether he be a real ghost or symbolic, I see it as unnecessary and a little over the top.

I agree, While the show implies that Banri is different his ghost doesn't seem different. In fact, when i was watching i almost shut off the show just because of the ghost, its a cheap trick that really is not required. at all.

the line,

Spoiler for quote from episode:

I want to show you what Linda meant to me

was completely unnecessary. We could already guess that Linda meant a lot, or else they wouldn't have put her into the show.

[Kaoru Chujo]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I like everything about this show other than the "past self" Banri pre-amnesia bit. I don't like the ghost, whether he be a real ghost or symbolic, I see it as unnecessary and a little over the top.... Not to say that memories aren't important, but he's functionally the same person, even without being able to actually remember specific events, if his social conditioning is still in place. Thus the idea that his present self would be "erased" if his memories returned is kind of dumb as a major plot point.

Just something I've been thinking about. I do really like the show though, despite that. I like Koko as well, even with her flaws.

I think the ghost is an important character, but I haven't really got my mind around it yet, either. Seems kind of beside the point, so far. However, one of the interesting things about the situation is whether Banri's personality is the same as it was or different. Even if it is the same, the fact he feels it is different could make him think he wants to keep the new one.

I am really struck by his fear of losing his present self, and think that feeling can be applied to our own lives, without any amnesia being involved: it would be nice to have the boldness to step forward and change, rather than always thinking of myself as being exactly the same person I always have been. Of course, we can never change entirely, but that tension between same and different is pretty interesting, I think.

To be honest, I have always thought Kouko's personality was a bit too exaggerated, so I couldn't help taking her as comic, in a sense. I actually saw that in the most recent episode, when she cast Banri in Mitsuo's role. Sad and touching and scary, but also comic. Nevertheless, I like her, too.

[MCAL]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm no expert on amnesia either, but Enzo's right: you don't need amnesia for brain damage to change your personality.

That said, Banri's amnesia is really convenient. All he's forgotten is his personal history. He has no problem forming new memories, he remembered enough of his education to get into a top college...

Actually that happens as a result of Retrograde Amnesia. So it is very possible in real life.

[ellessarr]

hmm my 2 cents about ships...

well i think some peoples have a wrong interpretation about "romance/anime/lovetriangle(square or pentagon or something like that)/harem

not all romance mangas are made to be "choices", many romance are made with a route already predetermined it's not a mater about "who gonnal wins" but when the girl(the main girl) will end with the guy, and golden time is this type of anime, is not because you think who linda or another girl is better or because this is "who come first get served", not really this is more when we are talking about open harems(where all the girls have a fair chance of win), when we get in animes like golden time, the history is not about the guy choosen a girl but about a guy fallen in love with a complicated girl, all others girls are here only for drama sake or fanservice, even if their are freaking awesome perfect this not gonna change the fact who koko is the end girl, not because the mc ended choosing her but because the real plot of the manga/anime is make then fallen in love to each other, with this is mind at last for me is pointless to keep saying "who girl a or b are better or have a chance, girl a ou b is better because in order of the writer dont need to lost to much time in develop her, because she already ready to be used whenever the writer want or to be a love rival(just for the sake of the drama) or to be a supporter.

is important peoples know who not all the animes/mangas are about "what girl is better or what girl he gonna choose" but when the writer decide to finally end the main love history and put the main couple together.

i'm not saying who peoples can't ship others girls with the mc but not to the point to get upset or angry if you wanted girl dont wins because is obivious who she never have any real chance on the beginner and all her flags only was used for the sake of drama or fanservice.

[VooDooZulu]

Originally Posted by ellessarr

is important peoples know who not all the animes/mangas are about "what girl is better or what girl he gonna choose" but when the writer decide to finally end the main love history and put the main couple together.

i think the majority of us know that koko is going to end up being 'the winner' but that doesn't mean that she should be. We are looking at this in a fantasy world, as if we are a 3rd person viewing this inside of their own world. For instance, in Star Wars we knew the good guys were gonna win and that the death star was going to blow up. That doesn't mean we can't say "Holy cow! Luke almost died there!" or "If Vader wins he is going to blow up tatooine just for giggles". In reality, no luke didn't 'almost die there' because the writer was never planning on kill him.

Lets take the anime of The Pet Girl of Sakurasou for example, I knew from episode 1 that Shiina was going to 'win'. I didn't want her to, but i still watched for any romantic development between Kanda and Aoyama. In the same way i'm going to watch Golden time and gush about the Linda Banri ship sailing even though it never will.

[ellessarr]

Originally Posted by VooDooZulu

i think the majority of us know that koko is going to end up being 'the winner' but that doesn't mean that she should be. We are looking at this in a fantasy world, as if we are a 3rd person viewing this inside of their own world. For instance, in Star Wars we knew the good guys were gonna win and that the death star was going to blow up. That doesn't mean we can't say "Holy cow! Luke almost died there!" or "If Vader wins he is going to blow up tatooine just for giggles". In reality, no luke didn't 'almost die there' because the writer was never planning on kill him.

Lets take the anime of The Pet Girl of Sakurasou for example, I knew from episode 1 that Shiina was going to 'win'. I didn't want her to, but i still watched for any romantic development between Kanda and Aoyama. In the same way i'm going to watch Golden time and gush about the Linda Banri ship sailing even though it never will.

the bold part is the point, yes this means who she shold be, the plot is for her wins not others girls just because you dont like her or don't want her wins, is when i say this, one thing is when things are like white album 2 where we dont have a true winner and both girls have equal chances another is when the anime was specifically created to that girl win and the others girls are there or to help or to be a challenge.

just because you think another girl more than she deserves, this does not change the fact that she continues to warrant more, again as I said the function of the other girls is not really stealing mc is just complicate or help the development of the couple, this is the reason why in some cases other girls seem to be better than the main girl, that is the intent of the writer, in many cases if the main girl also seems to be perfect (at the same level or higher than all the others) then she will easily outshine the other girls removing the suspense.

[VooDooZulu]

Originally Posted by ellessarr

the bold part is the point, yes this means who she shold be, the plot is for her wins not others girls just because you dont like her or don't want her wins, is when i say this, one thing is when things are like white album 2 where we dont have a true winner and both girls have equal chances another is when the anime was specifically created to that girl win and the others girls are there or to help or to be a challenge.

just because you think another girl more than she deserves, this does not change the fact that she continues to warrant more, again as I said the function of the other girls is not really stealing mc is just complicate or help the development of the couple, this is the reason why in some cases other girls seem to be better than the main girl, that is the intent of the writer, in many cases if the main girl also seems to be perfect (at the same level or higher than all the others) then she will easily outshine the other girls removing the suspense.

You have stated exactly what i meant. Sometimes we find that one couple pairing is better than the other. Or at least appears to be that way. We know that the writer is going to end up shipping the two characters. Some people just want to see the other pairing even knowing that it won't happen.

What i'm saying is: I don't know what you're complaining about. If i want to fantasize one pairing that isn't going to happen, what is the problem with that?

Edit: after re-reading you say that we shouldn't get angry about it. But sometimes that emotion is what the writer intended. If they didn't want that bitterness in the story they wouldn't have put it in there. there are more ways to cause tension than a love triangle. The writer wants a feeling of loss for the 'loser' in some of the viewers. I believe that that is the intention.

[ellessarr]

Originally Posted by VooDooZulu

You have stated exactly what i meant. Sometimes we find that one couple pairing is better than the other. Or at least appears to be that way. We know that the writer is going to end up shipping the two characters. Some people just want to see the other pairing even knowing that it won't happen.

What i'm saying is: I don't know what you're complaining about. If i want to fantasize one pairing that isn't going to happen, what is the problem with that?

Edit: after re-reading you say that we shouldn't get angry about it. But sometimes that emotion is what the writer intended. If they didn't want that bitterness in the story they wouldn't have put it in there. there are more ways to cause tension than a love triangle. The writer wants a feeling of loss for the 'loser' in some of the viewers. I believe that that is the intention.

yep is something like that, what i want to say, my problem lies when i see posts like "this girls is stupid, this writer sucks, this girl dont deserves him, this anime is horrible and bla bla bla(sometimes maybe is justified cuz really sometimes we have a very poor writing and things can really look forced but not all times).

for now indeed koko looks like a very bad girl(future girilfriend) but the plot is exactly about her improve and develope and become a good girlfriend in the same time who also tada banbi need to become one again with his oldself past and keep living with his new life.

indeed for now linda looks like a better option(cuz she is designated to looks like the better option at start and maybe to be the "love triangle"), cuz this is intended by the writer for now koko is not the right option until she can proper improve then near the end become the perfect choice

what i'm try to say is sometimes some rants/hate/complain are "illogical" because this history is not about what girl is better but when their gonna end together

you can really love another ship think who your ship is better and even put some complain but is important know the bordeline between justified complain with no justified and does a "non sense" complain just because your ship not sail(because never was intended to really sail in the first time).

i'm not saying which is your case or others cases but i see a lot of "that cases" with unreasonable complains where even being obivous who is the winner girl/guy peoples just goes beyond the reason and "i dont care if the plot was for that girl my girl is the true girl".

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Not only can amnesia come with significant personality changes (though it doesn't always) so can traumatic brain injury even without amnesia. And Banri's amnesia was clearly caused by traumatic brain injury. So while I think it's an open question just how much Banri's personality really has changed (a lot of that may be his false perception based on the way his family acts around him) it's far from unrealistic if indeed it has changed a lot.

Of course, and personality change as a result of brain damage is something I find fascinating (like the famous miner who got that rod shot through his head in the 19th century).

There's two reasons why I think this is irrelevant to the Banri situation. He is worried that, were he to recover his memories, his personality would 'revert' to its prior form, erasing his temporary, current personality. If his personality were changed as a direct result of brain trauma (as opposed to indirectly from his memory loss), this isn't really in the realm of possibility. Change due to brain trauma is the result of a functional difference in the operation of the brain, beyond just the function of memory recall. He is speculating that memories are the sole reason for any supposed personality difference.

The second reason is that I suspect he is a cookie cutter fictional retrograde amnesiac, as Anh Minh alludes to. All he seems to have lost are his personal memories.

[Clarste]

Whether or not your memories make you who you are is standard philosophical question of identity. It doesn't really have anything to do with personality per se because identity doesn't really have anything to do with personality. And can you really say with certainty what it would feel like to have a lost lifetime's worth of memories come back to you at once? Frankly no one can, not even real recovered amnesiacs because if their identity was separate beforehand then it disappeared right at that moment. You might as well ask what life after death is like. Of course, the recovered person will probably remember having no memories, but that's not the same thing at all, and there's no way to ask.

Anyway, it's a question of identity, which is a tough question in the best of times.

[Asakura Hana]

i am watching its anime and not reading its manga ( if it has any). and i like its story.. but i think it will not last up to episode 20 ? my opinion..

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Clarste

Whether or not your memories make you who you are is standard philosophical question of identity. It doesn't really have anything to do with personality per se because identity doesn't really have anything to do with personality.

I have to disagree with this argument.

Your personality is unquestionably a big part of who you are.

Here's what I think is the case: Your sense of self, your identity, is determined mainly by two things - Your personality, and your reputation.

Your personality is basically who you are at the most basic level, freed from the influences of the outside world. Your reputation is basically the world telling you what they think of your personality, and people (especially kids and teenagers) tend to internalize that to at least some degree.

Personality, I think, is mostly genetic. It's mostly "nature". But reputation is mostly "nurture". Your reputation depends a lot on the viewpoints of others. For example, a personality type valued in one culture might be seen in a more negative light in another culture, and that can be very influencing to a person of that personality type.


The thing with a person with amnesia is that they're essentially liberated from (or denied, depending on your point of view) their reputation. At least this is the case if people don't go to considerable lengths to make your reputation known to you anew.

For a person with amnesia, I can see these being concerns - What skeletons are in my closet that I no longer know about? What reputation do I have? What do people tend to expect of me? What sort of person was I in the past?

Imagine a kid who gets picked on by another kid. The picked-on kid fights back, and "wins", bloodying the bully's nose. The bully then ironically goes crying to his parents and/or the teachers. The picked-on kid gets a reputation as a "delinquent" because of it. The picked-on kid eventually internalizes that reputation, and basically decides "Fine, if you all think that I'm a delinquent, then that's what I'll be. I'll just be the most effective delinquent ever!" So the kid ends up being a real hard case all through school, and a lot of it is due to just a few events in his childhood. Then as a young adult he loses all his memories, severing him from that "delinquent" reputation. Without that reputation dragging him down, he gets a new lease on life, attends College, meets a lot of new people, makes lots of friends, does well in College.

Now, what if he finds out about his past? What if he regains all his memories at some point? His realization about who he used to be could be a bit overwhelming. It wouldn't necessarily "overwrite" who he is now, but it could be forcing a much darker past unto him.

Perhaps Banri is fearful of something like this.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Clarste

Whether or not your memories make you who you are is standard philosophical question of identity. It doesn't really have anything to do with personality per se because identity doesn't really have anything to do with personality. And can you really say with certainty what it would feel like to have a lost lifetime's worth of memories come back to you at once? Frankly no one can, not even real recovered amnesiacs because if their identity was separate beforehand then it disappeared right at that moment. You might as well ask what life after death is like. Of course, the recovered person will probably remember having no memories, but that's not the same thing at all, and there's no way to ask.

Anyway, it's a question of identity, which is a tough question in the best of times.

Certainly, having lost your memories will affect self perception and in turn your identity. In that way, it could change how you behave.

I argue that if all you lose are the memories themselves and not the social/environmental conditioning that came attached to those memories (which are two distinct functions of the brain and thus do not necessarily have to be lost together), then you will still be a very similar person. This is assuming no other damage to brain function, for the reasons I gave in my last post.

[Frontier]

Originally Posted by Shinji103

Looking very nice there ladies .

Though the image is kinda ironic when you take episode four into account .

On the talk of personality and identity, I think this discussion would really benefit from seeing more of past Banri before the accident, to see how different he is from present Banri and how much the accident, if at all, changed his personality.

Episode 6 looks to have a flashback to his high school years, so that's likely going to be our first real look into what past Banri was like.

[Preciize]

Finally got to watching episode 5, the beginning was a bit sad with Tada running over to the bridge as well as the end meeting with Linda outside the hospital >.<

I'm starting to wonder if Linda was the one who hit Tada while he was on the bridge since she was next to a moped/motocycle in the hospital scene and Tada seemed to be hit by someone who was riding on one.

I also thought the whole ghost narration thing was unique, but not sure what to make of it.

[Clarste]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I have to disagree with this argument.

Your personality is unquestionably a big part of who you are.

I think you must be using a very different definition of personality than I am, because the idea that it's an unchangeable part of your nature seems quite simply absurd. Even ignoring the nature vs nurture baggage, to me "personality" is nothing more than "how you act" which is naturally going to change based on your circumstances. Even something as simple as talking to your boss versus talking to your little brother, you're obviously going to behave differently. Now, you could say that those are both different sides of the same underlying personality, but then the concept has been expanded so far as to be meaningless. In that sense everyone can be described by anything. Which, incidentally, is exactly how the fortunetelling business stays popular.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Clarste

I think you must be using a very different definition of personality than I am,

Yes, I am. The following is the definition I'm using.

Here is the definition for personality.

Key excerpt:

2. The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.
3. The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person:


This is far more than simply "how you act". "How you act" is just a small part of your personality. Your personality is essentially you, the real you, at least at a level freed from outside influences.

I wouldn't say that a person's personality is totally unchangeable, but it also doesn't change easily. Could amnesia change it? Yes, it could, but not necessarily. And even if it did, I doubt that amnesia would change it a lot. I definitely think that genetics plays a big role in your personality, and limits how much it can change.

The bigger impact with amnesia, I think, is how it impacts your sense of your own reputation. With amnesia, that's completely shattered, at least for a time.

In any event, your personality definitely factors into your sense of self, and your sense of personal identity.

Even something as simple as talking to your boss versus talking to your little brother, you're obviously going to behave differently. Now, you could say that those are both different sides of the same underlying personality, but then the concept has been expanded so far as to be meaningless.

I disagree. I don't see how this expands the concept of "personality" to the point of meaningless. I still find the concept useful, valid, and not that hard to understand.

For a couple years in my late teens, I was in three different social circles. I presented myself slightly differently within each of those social circles, because the demands/expectations of those social circles were different (as was my reasons for being in each one). But it's not that either of those presentations of myself was "false". They all reflected the real me, they just reflected different parts of me.

[Flower]

I have heard it explained kinda like this. (And this is only a general image/reference point, mind you.)

Physically we have a commonality of things that all people have (arms, legs, eyes, knees, ears, etc.) at the same time we have an individual element that could not be changed - we are the result of the combination of a particular seed and egg from particular people at a particular time, and that can never be re-created. But then with those two elements of raw materials we can develop, deform, sharpen, ignore, etc. in a whole series of ways, but only in the confines of the raw material we are born with.

Some hold that it is the same internally. We have a common, objective yet of parameters as human beings and we have particular, inherited parameters from our parents and the like. With this raw material one can develop, cultivate, neglect, etc. oneself in a whole series of ways, but only in the comfines of the material we are born with.

Now there are a lot of particulars that can spring off of this. Some people held to the belief or ideas that together with the general and particular aspects of a person is seated the essence of what one is. Sort of like how the entirety of what a tree will become is "written" in an acorn, or some such. The development aspect of who and what one is may change or become different (or worse) over time, but it is becoming such in a specific context. People would articulate the difference between one's inner essential, objective, undeveloped nature and the developed or cultivated manifestation of that nature, what they called personhood at its deepest level, or personality at its cruder levels.

In this context it is very possible for someone to take damage to his body and have it affect his personality, while his basic inner raw material and general wiring still remain the same. There is a spectrum to this and different levels of damage, of course, and it needn't just be physical causes that can mess a person up badly, but no matter the damage from the outside or to the outside the raw material remains essentially the same.

This could be one possible explanationhow someone like Banri could suffer amnesia through an accident affecting him externally while still retaining the raw material of what makes him him.

[velvet nightmare]

Originally Posted by Flower

I have heard it explained kinda like this. (And this is only a general image/reference point, mind you.)

Physically we have a commonality of things that all people have (arms, legs, eyes, knees, ears, etc.) at the same time we have an individual element that could not be changed - we are the result of the combination of a particular seed and egg from particular people at a particular time, and that can never be re-created. But then with those two elements of raw materials we can develop, deform, sharpen, ignore, etc. in a whole series of ways, but only in the confines of the raw material we are born with.

Some hold that it is the same internally. We have a common, objective yet of parameters as human beings and we have particular, inherited parameters from our parents and the like. With this raw material one can develop, cultivate, neglect, etc. oneself in a whole series of ways, but only in the comfines of the material we are born with.

Now there are a lot of particulars that can spring off of this. Some people held to the belief or ideas that together with the general and particular aspects of a person is seated the essence of what one is. Sort of like how the entirety of what a tree will become is "written" in an acorn, or some such. The development aspect of who and what one is may change or become different (or worse) over time, but it is becoming such in a specific context. People would articulate the difference between one's inner essential, objective, undeveloped nature and the developed or cultivated manifestation of that nature, what they called personhood at its deepest level, or personality at its cruder levels.

In this context it is very possible for someone to take damage to his body and have it affect his personality, while his basic inner raw material and general wiring still remain the same. There is a spectrum to this and different levels of damage, of course, and it needn't just be physical causes that can mess a person up badly, but no matter the damage from the outside or to the outside the raw material remains essentially the same.

This could be one possible explanationhow someone like Banri could suffer amnesia through an accident affecting him externally while still retaining the raw material of what makes him him.

ok... so how do you explain his ghost.

in the end this is one huge argument of what is a 'soul'. can a machine have a soul? the human body is just a really complex biological machine.

this story is fiction. the author doesn't need it to particularly make sense how he has selective memory loss, it's not the point. we shouldn't get hung up on details and miss the big picture.

[Flower]

I do not explain the ghost. ^^

I was merely giving an example of how one could possibly think of personality or personhood as an unchangeable part of one's nature, and how the example I gave could lead to more of an idea or context of the viewer relating to Banri's situation. That's all.

I have no idea what to make of the ghost, tbh, but the ghost's presence in this fixtional narrative in no way falsifies a person's beliefs or example they give from RL in of itself, whether that person believes the ideas or no. Just like the existence of unicorns or orcs or Cthulu or time travellers in fictional narratives does not in of itself disprove insights into human habits or descriptions of beauty or depictions of moral ugliness.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you about not getting hung up on details wnd missing the big picture as a result. ^^