Madoka Magica - Movie 3 Spoilers and Speculations

[Revan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's not that magic can't be observed, but the Incubators don't understand how it works, only what it does and what causes magic to happen. Even with that, a deity that cannot be observed and transcends time is on a different level.

Also, Madoka is a law of the universe. If they were capable of trumping those, entropy would've never been an issue in the first place.

Not knowing or not needing to consider internal mechanisms is such a common thing in science and engineering that we have a term for it: "black box." Knowing the inputs and outputs of a system is often all you need to make use of it. It does not follow that ignorance of how magic works internally would prevent the Incubators from replicating specific observable effects via other means. It is common in reality that the same basic effect can be caused by several different possible means.

The Law of Cycles may well be a law of the universe; Madoka the person does not appear to be one. But even if she is, it does not follow that all laws are equal, or that they must apply the way one might intuitively assume. For all we know, the Incubators might be able to create a small, constrained domain where they can violate the second law of thermodynamics. As long as maintaining that domain produces more entropy in the external universe than what they can save via whatever they are doing inside it, that would still be a losing proposition for them. If we allow that magic can violate the second law of thermodynamics, then it is at least possible that other violations might also exist. All we can say with confidence is that the Incubators are not able to exploit them for their benefit. In fact, even "not able" is going too far. It may simply be the case that the magical girl system is so much more efficient that the alternatives are not worth pursuing.

We simply do not know what the relevant laws are. Actually, there seems to be some real confusion here about what "law" even means in this context. I'll continue this line of thinking after the next quote.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Because Madoka's acts rewrote the laws of the universe, and the power of science/technology is effectively just utilizing the product of those laws.

Show me science that can permanently rewrite how science functions and maybe I'll concede the point.

There's a few problems with that. First of all:

Originally Posted by 1862

"[... thorough analysis ...] It seems, therefore, on the whole most probable that the sun has not illuminated the earth for 100,000,000 years, and almost certain that he has not done so for 500,000,000 years."

~ On the Age of the Sun’s Heat
By Sir William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin)

Because, you see, until the discovery of nuclear physics, there was no plausible way the sun could be anywhere near as old as we now know it to be. This is a classic example of why argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy. There is no way to get from "we don't currently know how" to "it is impossible." If we observe something to happen, then it quite clearly is possible, no matter how much our intuitions/common sense/whatever may revolt at the idea. One is not justified in assuming one's preferred conclusion until it has been disproved. If we don't know, then all we can honestly say is that we don't know.

Secondly, a phrase like "science that can permanently rewrite how science functions" sounds to me to show a profound misunderstanding of what science is and how it functions. Scientific laws are descriptions of reality, not rules that govern reality. They are models with empirically demonstrable predictive utility. In science, when somebody "breaks" a law, that isn't a problem; it is in fact great progress. Madoka did not "permanently rewrite how science functions" at all. She rewrote how the universe functions -- that is not the same thing. She provided a demonstration that the universe is more malleable than we might previously have supposed. Science incorporates this new information and continues. There are some real hypotheses being researched in theoretical physics right now that, if correct, would mean that the universe is "hackable" for lack of a better term. Are they right? Who knows!? One can always draw a circle around what was thought to be all of reality, and treat that as a sub-system of some greater system. Even if our universe is truly all that exists, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be modified from within. That we do not yet know how proves nothing.

Third, there is no way, even in principle, to know that the laws one has perfectly reflect reality. At best, one can say that they are in concordance with all available evidence (and even that has never actually happened in the history of science; there have always been at least some known flaws). If one did solve all known flaws, there would still always exist the possibility of untested circumstances or new phenomena that could reveal flaws in one's laws. It doesn't matter if it's Kelvin, Kyubey, or anybody else.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

*Points to Kyubey's spiel in episode 12 about how Madoka's wish tells the laws of time and space to shove it.*

Whether the parameters of universes can be changed by non-magical means or not is an open question at this point, even in our reality. In a fictional reality it is totally uncertain. See above. Changing some things does not prove the capability to change any given thing. Or to say it another way: transcending some non-absolutes does not prove one can transcend all non-absolutes.

What PMMM established is that making a contract grants a girl some powers based on her wish. Beyond that minimum, any other powers are just speculation until they are explicitly demonstrated.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The photon thing was an example of Madoka going around Kyubey's interference in her task, not necessarily dodging Kyubey's observations.

It's not even necessary, because the laws of the universe are effectively omnipresent. Witch barriers don't have their own flow of time, for instance (that we know of).

Except that we don't know why Madoka chose to handle the situation the way she did. We can only speculate. Maybe an imaginary witch transformation is an edge case to which the Law of Cycles doesn't actually apply, so Madoka had to manually intervene. Maybe cleansing Homura's soul gem while her consciousness was in a labyrinth inside the soul gem would have had severe consequences for Homura. Maybe it's something else entirely. We just don't know.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Gonna stop you right there by pointing out that the Japanese language doesn't distinguish between 'if' statements and 'absolute' statements like that, and that the language is structured to offer passive non-absolutes as part of its integral grammar. An absolute factual statement can and often is translated into English as rhetorical questions, because boldly stating things as absolutes in Japanese is incredibly rude and unfitting of Madoka's gentle and feminine speaking style.

As I've already told DarkSoul42, I don't have the expertise to evaluate such claims. I'm not saying you're right; I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know. In that very same exchange, Madoka says: "It'll be all right. I know it'll be all right." They chose to translate that as a definite assertion. Picking apart why that claim is translated as certain and the other as uncertain just isn't something I have the skill to do. This is an English-language forum, so as far as I am concerned the official English translation is the definitive text for the purposes of debate here. Otherwise every point of contention can be drawn into a "well, in the original Japanese..."-type argument, in which I cannot participate.

You may feel that is unreasonable, but the alternative is more unreasonable, IMHO.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

By not putting things in terms of absolutes and predetermined outcomes, she offers Homura hope that things can change and a true miracle can occur by Homura's own doing.

You know, that hope thing that she's kind of in charge of handing out, now.

You haven't answered the objection. Homura is very clearly distressed at that point. Telling her directly would have provided some immediate comfort. A non-omniscient being could claim that not telling her directly was intended to offer hope or whatever, but an omniscient Madoka can't make such a claim, because she would already know that "let's believe"-type statements will not give Homura much comfort, as they clearly did not. Once Homura arrives in the new universe she knows she remembers so it's too late for it to be hope at that point. So it still doesn't work, and since Madoka would have already known it wouldn't work, doing it anyway would just be mean.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

According to the dictionary, hope is " the state which promotes the desire of positive outcomes related to events and circumstances in one's life or in the world at large." This doesn't necessitate uncertainty or belief at all. Moreover, she is a hopeBRINGER. She is a law of the universe that offers uncertain mortals the assurance that things can and will be alright for them.

Your argument is akin to claiming that Christ can't feel the very thing he's offering his followers.

I don't know what dictionary you are using, but:

Originally Posted by Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

hope (həʊp)

— n
1. ( sometimes plural ) a feeling of desire for something and confidence in the possibility of its fulfilment: his hope for peace was justified ; their hopes were dashed
2. a reasonable ground for this feeling: there is still hope
3. a person or thing that gives cause for hope
4. a thing, situation, or event that is desired: my hope is that prices will fall
5. not a hope , some hope used ironically to express little confidence that expectations will be fulfilled

— vb (often foll by for )
6. ( tr; takes a clause as object or an infinitive ) to desire (something) with some possibility of fulfilment: we hope you can come ; I hope to tell you
7. to have a wish (for a future event, situation, etc)
8. ( tr; takes a clause as object ) to trust, expect, or believe: we hope that this is satisfactory

[Old English hopa; related to Old Frisian hope, Dutch hoop, Middle High German hoffe ]

Originally Posted by Online Etymology Dictionary

hope
O.E. hopian "wish, expect, look forward (to something)," of unknown origin, a general Low Ger. word (cf. O.Fris. hopia, M.L.G., M.Du. hopen; M.H.G. hoffen "to hope" was borrowed from Low Ger. Some suggest a connection with hop (v.) on the notion of "leaping in expectation."

No matter how you slice it, uncertainty is an important component of "hope." One can have reasons to hope, but absolute certainty precludes hope. Without uncertainty, what you're talking about is more like general "benevolence."

As for Christ: in an important sense he can't. But this is not the place for debating real world dogmas and how much sense they do or don't make. I feel going into this would inevitably take us too close to violating AnimeSuki Posting Rule 2.8, so I will politely decline further pursuing any debates about entities from real religions.

[Kazu-kun]

^ Uncertainty is definitely a core component of hope. If you know something for a fact, there's no room for hope. You hope when/because you don't know for sure.

[AuraTwilight]

You haven't answered the objection. Homura is very clearly distressed at that point. Telling her directly would have provided some immediate comfort. A non-omniscient being could claim that not telling her directly was intended to offer hope or whatever, but an omniscient Madoka can't make such a claim, because she would already know that "let's believe"-type statements will not give Homura much comfort, as they clearly did not. Once Homura arrives in the new universe she knows she remembers so it's too late for it to be hope at that point. So it still doesn't work, and since Madoka would have already known it wouldn't work, doing it anyway would just be mean.

Then make Homura an exception since she hasn't yet entered the realities Madoka has vision of. Doesn't really matter. Madoka's still effectively omniscient about the fates of all Magical Girls, minimum, and whatever exceptions Homura might've had should effectively vanish once she becomes Bowmura.

No matter how you slice it, uncertainty is an important component of "hope." One can have reasons to hope, but absolute certainty precludes hope. Without uncertainty, what you're talking about is more like general "benevolence."

Fine, whatever; then Madoka herself doesn't necessarily feel hope; but she also doesn't need it if such is the case. It's not like Aphrodite ever felt love stronger than lust or anything, etc.

[Revan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Then make Homura an exception since she hasn't yet entered the realities Madoka has vision of. Doesn't really matter. Madoka's still effectively omniscient about the fates of all Magical Girls, minimum, and whatever exceptions Homura might've had should effectively vanish once she becomes Bowmura.

The most charitable interpretation I can make of this is still an ad hoc rationalization. My grounds for skepticism should be obvious. And I feel I must remind you that the limits of Madokami's knowledge is one of the things we are debating. Just asserting her omniscience here is begging the question. You need to justify your claim that season 1 definitively established Madoka as temporally omniscient. It is not sufficient to say it could maybe have been interpreted that way. You have to demonstrate it as a fact. Otherwise Rebellion is not contradicting this point; it is just clarifying something that was previously uncertain.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Fine, whatever; then Madoka herself doesn't necessarily feel hope; but she also doesn't need it if such is the case. It's not like Aphrodite ever felt love stronger than lust or anything, etc.

I never said she needs it; I said it's a weird choice thematically. That is a subjective interpretation that you are under no obligation to agree with. I think there's value in pointing it out, because you and I are (I hope) not the only ones reading this exchange. I place value on Madoka being able to feel hope. I think it's an important part of her characterization, and important to the message of the series. Her heroism comes mostly from never losing hope, no matter how hopeless things seem. To me, a temporally omniscient being is not the bringer of hope, but rather the bringer of fatalism. You are free to see it differently. The point I intended to establish is that Madoka's ability to hope is yet another thing your interpretation sacrifices. If humans were purely logical, that would be irrelevant, but since they are not, that might be an important consideration for a third party reading this.

I don't see how that Aphrodite comparison works. Even ignoring all the other differences, Aphrodite's relationship with love is more like "patron deity." She is associated with love, but also with other things like beauty, pleasure, and procreation. Specifically non-lustful love isn't the integral part of her message or identity. Madoka is described as becoming hope itself, and that metaphor exists within the larger hope vs. despair framework of the series. It's quite a different relationship.

[AuraTwilight]

The most charitable interpretation I can make of this is still an ad hoc rationalization. My grounds for skepticism should be obvious. And I feel I must remind you that the limits of Madokami's knowledge is one of the things we are debating. Just asserting her omniscience here is begging the question. You need to justify your claim that season 1 definitively established Madoka as temporally omniscient

"I can see all universes that have existed, and all the universes that ever will be. I've seen all the times you've hurt, and cried, and all you've done for me throughout all those timelines."

Even if she's not absolutely omniscient, she's close enough that she should function as such for plot concerns.

I never said she needs it; I said it's a weird choice thematically.

I could say the same thing about her becoming hope for everyone when no one knows she exists or what awaits them after they disappear. Hope doesn't mean much if no one knows about it, and no one has the witch scenario to compare the Law of Cycles to as something to appreciate.

I place value on Madoka being able to feel hope. I think it's an important part of her characterization, and important to the message of the series. Her heroism comes mostly from never losing hope, no matter how hopeless things seem. To me, a temporally omniscient being is not the bringer of hope, but rather the bringer of fatalism. You are free to see it differently. The point I intended to establish is that Madoka's ability to hope is yet another thing your interpretation sacrifices. If humans were purely logical, that would be irrelevant, but since they are not, that might be an important consideration for a third party reading this.

I still don't feel like Madoka loses hope, but even if she does, she's a concept now. Concepts are not people in the way that we are people, and she certainly was everbrimming with hope when she initially made her wish in the first place.

Even then, though, it doesn't matter; because she's a SOURCE of hope. A judeo-christian deity does not feel salvation/forgiveness/whatever benefit is being conferred onto those the deity is blessing.

I don't see how that Aphrodite comparison works. Even ignoring all the other differences, Aphrodite's relationship with love is more like "patron deity." She is associated with love, but also with other things like beauty, pleasure, and procreation. Specifically non-lustful love isn't the integral part of her message or identity. Madoka is described as becoming hope itself, and that metaphor exists within the larger hope vs. despair framework of the series. It's quite a different relationship.

Madoka literally becoming hope is poetic language at best; she didn't literally become the emotional capacity for hope within all human beings, or else the ramifications of Kyubey/Homucifer messing with her would have much BROADER consequences. She is a physical law of the universe that facilitates hopeful outcomes better than the universe that didn't have that law, and ultimately that's what it comes down to. She's a 'patron deity' of hope in that she is championing its cause.

She's not 'literally' hope. She CAN'T be. Madoka's existence doesn't effect the capacity of humans to feel that emotion aside from the circumstantial.

[Revan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

"I can see all universes that have existed, and all the universes that ever will be. I've seen all the times you've hurt, and cried, and all you've done for me throughout all those timelines."

Even if she's not absolutely omniscient, she's close enough that she should function as such for plot concerns.

That's the opposite of how drama works. If she is basically omniscient in every context except for one, then that one is the story worth telling.

Look at the other side for a moment. Madoka isn't a philosopher or a scientist. In the universe-reboot scene, she is talking to her friend, not giving a lecture. Suppose, just hypothetically, that what Madoka said there is mostly true, but there are some technicalities involved. Certain odd exceptions or edge cases exist that, under the right conditions, create what are effectively blind spots in her knowledge of the future. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect that she would have gone into those details at that time?

Because here is the thing: Madokami is only in like two scenes in the entirety of Season 1. She's in the universe-reboot scene, and the Sayaka farewell scene. Oh, and her disembodied voice says one word in the after-credits stinger. So where is the opportunity for her to explain such details? You are extrapolating so much from such limited information. I don't understand how you can seriously feel such confidence from such a weak foundation.

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Omniscience is a huge claim. And the only indication we have is a couple lines of dialogue that might be saying that, but can also be interpreted in other ways. It's not like she is shown to do anything that only an omniscient being could do. The only special knowledge we can be sure she was granted is when & where she has to go to erase each witch. Beyond that, we're in the land of "maybe."

While I'm on the topic of big claims: the idea that the Magica Quartet (and everyone else with a voice in the project) just forgot or overlooked that they made Madoka omniscient at the end of Season 1 is really hard to swallow. That's not a minor oversight. We're not talking about an anachronistic prop, or some inconsistent magitechnobabble. If your interpretation is the intended one, how did the creative team overlook this?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I could say the same thing about her becoming hope for everyone when no one knows she exists or what awaits them after they disappear. Hope doesn't mean much if no one knows about it, and no one has the witch scenario to compare the Law of Cycles to as something to appreciate.

I have no idea how she knows it, but in the train station scene in Episode 12, Mami explains the point of the Law of Cycles:
"Before the hope we wished for summons an equivalent amount of misfortune, we have no choice but to vanish from this world."
So somehow they do understand, at least vaguely, that the Law of Cycles saves them from having their wishes turn to ill. They don't know about witches specifically, but they know something bad is being averted.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I still don't feel like Madoka loses hope, but even if she does, she's a concept now. Concepts are not people in the way that we are people, and she certainly was everbrimming with hope when she initially made her wish in the first place.

Even then, though, it doesn't matter; because she's a SOURCE of hope. A judeo-christian deity does not feel salvation/forgiveness/whatever benefit is being conferred onto those the deity is blessing.

She is not literally a concept. Concepts are not people in any meaningful sense. Concepts can't talk, or have opinions, or take actions. Concepts have no agency at all. Concepts just are.

She is also not a judeo-christian deity. She's not a creator god of any kind. Attempts to connect the two do more to confuse than to clarify. An ascended former-mortal is a fundamentally different sort of being than the source of all existence.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Madoka literally becoming hope is poetic language at best; she didn't literally become the emotional capacity for hope within all human beings, or else the ramifications of Kyubey/Homucifer messing with her would have much BROADER consequences. She is a physical law of the universe that facilitates hopeful outcomes better than the universe that didn't have that law, and ultimately that's what it comes down to. She's a 'patron deity' of hope in that she is championing its cause.

She's not 'literally' hope. She CAN'T be. Madoka's existence doesn't effect the capacity of humans to feel that emotion aside from the circumstantial.

I said right in the bit you quoted that "becoming hope" was a metaphor. Of course it's not literally true. The point is, if you take "love stronger than lust" (or whatever you originally said) away from Aphrodite, she would still feel like Aphrodite. Take hope away from Madoka and she just doesn't feel like Madoka anymore.

[AuraTwilight]

That's the opposite of how drama works. If she is basically omniscient in every context except for one, then that one is the story worth telling.

That's, like, your opinion man. This wouldn't be the first story to involve omniscient characters and still have drama and conflict.

It's ACTING on that omniscience that can be a deal-breaker. We also don't really know how Madoka defines 'everything will be alright', considering she has a Valhalla now to justify pretty much all Magical Girl tragedies.

You know, some would argue that any sort of afterlife at all will take the punch out of any sort of drama in a story's universe. One's Mileage May Vary.

Look at the other side for a moment. Madoka isn't a philosopher or a scientist. In the universe-reboot scene, she is talking to her friend, not giving a lecture. Suppose, just hypothetically, that what Madoka said there is mostly true, but there are some technicalities involved. Certain odd exceptions or edge cases exist that, under the right conditions, create what are effectively blind spots in her knowledge of the future. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect that she would have gone into those details at that time?

Does it matter?

She was functionally omniscient with all evidence leaning towards such until Rebellion happened, which wasn't part of the original plans. Regardless of what is the case NOW, the original intent seems to lean toward Omniscient Madoka.

And Rebellion seemingly contradicting this is just one of many things I'm taking grievances with for coherency's sake.

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Omniscience is a huge claim. And the only indication we have is a couple lines of dialogue that might be saying that, but can also be interpreted in other ways. It's not like she is shown to do anything that only an omniscient being could do. The only special knowledge we can be sure she was granted is when & where she has to go to erase each witch. Beyond that, we're in the land of "maybe."

She pretty much has to know the lives, wishes, and falls of all Puella Magi in all times, spaces, and possible universes ever, and she won't be able to interact with the universe in any circumstances outside of that.

That's why I said she's functionally omniscient. Whether she's absolutely so is entirely irrelevant because she will be for the sake of all situations where she is an agent capable of taking actions, retcons and questionable movie shenanigans notwithstanding. There's really no convenient reason why the events of the movie should've been a blindspot to her.

While I'm on the topic of big claims: the idea that the Magica Quartet (and everyone else with a voice in the project) just forgot or overlooked that they made Madoka omniscient at the end of Season 1 is really hard to swallow. That's not a minor oversight. We're not talking about an anachronistic prop, or some inconsistent magitechnobabble. If your interpretation is the intended one, how did the creative team overlook this?

It's really not that significant of a plot detail, since they weren't originally intending for any sort of follow-up, and even then changed their plans for a follow-up atleast once in an extremely significant way.

I mean, gosh, it's not like continuations of otherwise complete narratives don't just completely discard inconvenient setting elements to conduct their sequels properly, intentionally or otherwise. Highlander II, anyone?

tl;dr the argument of incredulity is a fallacy.

I have no idea how she knows it, but in the train station scene in Episode 12, Mami explains the point of the Law of Cycles:
"Before the hope we wished for summons an equivalent amount of misfortune, we have no choice but to vanish from this world."
So somehow they do understand, at least vaguely, that the Law of Cycles saves them from having their wishes turn to ill. They don't know about witches specifically, but they know something bad is being averted.

And as far as they know they just die. Whoopee.

She is not literally a concept. Concepts are not people in any meaningful sense. Concepts can't talk, or have opinions, or take actions. Concepts have no agency at all. Concepts just are.

Kyubey disagrees, and he's the closest thing to an objective exposition character we have. You can disagree, but you have to either concede that characters are liberally using poetic language (which hurts your own arguments), or admit you're moving goalposts, here.

She is also not a judeo-christian deity. She's not a creator god of any kind. Attempts to connect the two do more to confuse than to clarify. An ascended former-mortal is a fundamentally different sort of being than the source of all existence.

The details are irrelevant. They're both transcendent deities that dedicate their cosmic business to the benefit of mortal men. The differences between the two are entirely academic and left to the semantic circlejerking of philosophy.

I said right in the bit you quoted that "becoming hope" was a metaphor. Of course it's not literally true. The point is, if you take "love stronger than lust" (or whatever you originally said) away from Aphrodite, she would still feel like Aphrodite. Take hope away from Madoka and she just doesn't feel like Madoka anymore.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

The only qualifiers of Madoka's emotional state and significance is that she's hope for everyone else, she'll never fall into despair, and she insists that things will be alright and miracles will happen.

And she's happy and optimistic and bright and cheerful and totally at peace with everything. Given that the series has already conflated Hope and Happiness into basically a singular mass as it is, the certainty of her future is kind of unimportant. It really, REALLY doesn't matter if she can feel "hope" in a dictionary sense.

[woxx]

I feel like everyone forgot that Madoka after her wish in 12th episode looked like normal magical girl with huge magical powers.

Spoiler for screenshot from 12th episode:

She became godlike being due her wish, only after her soulgem came to its end and her witch was released.


Bowmura is exactly the same, but her wish is reffering to Madoka only(so her goddess(Devil) form is different). Even her black bow represented Madoka's weapon.

[Revan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

...

Are you going to defend the claim that Rebellion contradicts the original series or not? If you are, then I will take the time to write up a proper response. If you are just going to keep defending that your interpretation could have been correct, then there is nothing worthwhile for us to discuss. A sequel is only obligated to match what was definitely established to be the case; it is not obligated to match what could have been interpreted as being the case.

[Shadow5YA]

Originally Posted by Revan

She is also not a judeo-christian deity. She's not a creator god of any kind. Attempts to connect the two do more to confuse than to clarify. An ascended former-mortal is a fundamentally different sort of being than the source of all existence.

You are forgetting one of the most important parts about Christianity -- Christ himself.

While it is true that she isn't "the creator", there are plenty of parallels to call Madoka the Messiah who gave up her humanity to bring salvation to her people.

[AuraTwilight]

I feel like everyone forgot that Madoka after her wish in 12th episode looked like normal magical girl with huge magical powers.

We didn't forget, but can you explain how this is relevant? I'm unsure what point you're making.

Are you going to defend the claim that Rebellion contradicts the original series or not? If you are, then I will take the time to write up a proper response. If you are just going to keep defending that your interpretation could have been correct, then there is nothing worthwhile for us to discuss. A sequel is only obligated to match what was definitely established to be the case; it is not obligated to match what could have been interpreted as being the case.

I already personally feel that Rebellion contradicts implications in the original series besides the point of Madoka's divine nature, and I have grievances beyond the possibility of plot holes.

[Wanderer]

Regarding Madoka having omniscience, I have to agree with Revan in that I really don't see it as being necessarily the case.

Madoka used way too much uncertainty-conveying language in her parting with Homura: "moshikashitara", "kitto", "kamo shirenai", "shinjiyou".

[AuraTwilight]

Madoka used way too much uncertainty-conveying language in her parting with Homura: "moshikashitara", "kitto", "kamo shirenai", "shinjiyou".

I've already explained why I don't find this convincing.

Plus, I can turn Revan's argument right around. If her job is to give people hope, and hope requires uncertainty, then she should always speak in uncertain but optimistic terms regardless for the sake of her conversation partners.

[magnum12]

Come to think of it, I think I know why the ending is unsettling for me: This has become a repeat of the debacle that happened with Mega Man Zero (which much like PMMM is a deconstruction of its genre not to mention its series).

To elaborate: According to Inafune, the 3rd game was supposed to be the end of the series. Alas, meddling by Capcom executives demanded a 4th game who's events basically overrode the happy ending of the 3rd game, retconned the ending to kill 3 major characters off screen, and who's only function was a way to set up the next series. The irony: The 3rd game already left a good hook for the ZX series. The game itself is generally considered a big step down in terms of the quality of its writing and especially its game play.

What's also oddly similar is that Homura's fate in Rebellion is an almost 1:1 match for

Spoiler for Mega Man series spoiler:

X's

fate in the first Zero game (note: more on a conceptual level than a litereal level), which was literately changed in the last month of development.

As a further similarity, there's also the comparison between the two series on the endings that were overridden.

Spoiler for major MMz3 spoilers:

X sacrifices himself to save both humanity and reploids, his best friend Zero finally finds the peace he's deserved (though in this case it was due to a fight to the death with a physical representation of his inner demons) and continues to fight for X's hopes and dreams in a world that was once a total dump but turned into a "glass half full" world.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I've already explained why I don't find this convincing.

Plus, I can turn Revan's argument right around. If her job is to give people hope, and hope requires uncertainty, then she should always speak in uncertain but optimistic terms regardless for the sake of her conversation partners.

Not when it comes to Homura, she shouldn't. Homura prefers having something a bit more concrete to put her hope in.

Also, speaking in certainties doesn't negate hope for the listener, because the listener still has to believe that you're telling the truth, and belief requires at least a little bit of hope. So for the listener, speaking in uncertainties may well lower one's hope if it undermines belief in the speaker. In fact, isn't that true of conversations in general? People are generally more likely to believe something stated in confident certainties/specifics than in something stated in uncertain or vague language.

Madoka spoke in uncertainties because she herself was probably not entirely certain about what she was saying. That, and/or she was still trying to compute everything herself. A human mind suddenly being thrust into a state of heightened cosmic awareness will take awhile to adjust. Even if Madokami isn't fully omniscient, she still is being bombarded with vast quantities of new information. I have no doubt that she did in fact see all the loops that Homura went through before. Even if her words are exaggeration, this much is true. And that alone is a lot for a human mind to take in.

[AuraTwilight]

A human mind suddenly being thrust into a state of heightened cosmic awareness will take awhile to adjust.

What does that even mean for a being that's outside of time? For all we know, the Madoka that Homura spoke to has gotten 'used' to her new state of existence over 100,000 years ago, from her own perspective.

Assuming she even experiences subjective linearity.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by magnum12

Come to think of it, I think I know why the ending is unsettling for me: This has become a repeat of the debacle that happened with Mega Man Zero (which much like PMMM is a deconstruction of its genre not to mention its series).

To elaborate: According to Inafune, the 3rd game was supposed to be the end of the series. Alas, meddling by Capcom executives demanded a 4th game who's events basically overrode the happy ending of the 3rd game, retconned the ending to kill 3 major characters off screen, and who's only function was a way to set up the next series. The irony: The 3rd game already left a good hook for the ZX series. The game itself is generally considered a big step down in terms of the quality of its writing and especially its game play.

What's also oddly similar is that Homura's fate in Rebellion is an almost 1:1 match for

Spoiler for Mega Man series spoiler:

X's

fate in the first Zero game (note: more on a conceptual level than a litereal level), which was literately changed in the last month of development.

As a further similarity, there's also the comparison between the two series on the endings that were overridden.

Spoiler for major MMz3 spoilers:

X sacrifices himself to save both humanity and reploids, his best friend Zero finally finds the peace he's deserved (though in this case it was due to a fight to the death with a physical representation of his inner demons) and continues to fight for X's hopes and dreams in a world that was once a total dump but turned into a "glass half full" world.

Pretty much. They broke a really good story. I could maybe feel OK with braking it if they had some kind of plan to rebuild it into something worth the sacrifice, but they don't.

In the first place I don't think anything worth the sacrifice is even realistically possible, but the creators have even basically said that at this point they're making the story up as they go along. It's just sad.

I was literally in a state of grief in the days after I saw the movie. The overriding of the original ending caused me feelings of personal loss.

I do have some excitement to see where the story is taken next, but I doubt the story as a whole can ever again be as meaningful as it once was. As it stands now, it's not even close.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Pretty much. They broke a really good story. I could maybe feel OK with braking it if they had some kind of plan to rebuild it into something worth the sacrifice, but they don't.

Based on what? All signs actually point towards them continuing the story, so I don't see where you get the idea that they have no plans to rebuild.

In the first place I don't think anything worth the sacrifice is even realistically possible, but the creators have even basically said that at this point they're making the story up as they go along. It's just sad.

Considering it was meant to be a one-and-done single cour series... obviously? I mean, it isn't based on any source material, so really it was being made up as they went along in the first place.

I was literally in a state of grief in the days after I saw the movie. The overriding of the original ending caused me feelings of personal loss.

I do have some excitement to see where the story is taken next, but I doubt the story as a whole can ever again be as meaningful as it once was. As it stands now, it's not even close.

Then you shouldn't have watched it in the first place. If the original story meant that much to you, you shouldn't have risked it by expanding. It's not like this is necessary to get the whole story or anything.

[Vegard Aune]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I was literally in a state of grief in the days after I saw the movie. The overriding of the original ending caused me feelings of personal loss.

I do have some excitement to see where the story is taken next, but I doubt the story as a whole can ever again be as meaningful as it once was. As it stands now, it's not even close.

Likewise, though I've basically gotten over most of my hatred of this film and have basically decided to treat it as a separate entity from the show, and as such I can more or less retain my goodwill towards the show as a complete story, because, y'know, it is. Even if Urobuchi thought the ending to this movie was an absolutely inspired, brilliant idea (which we have no way of knowing BTW, because even if he did think it was a bad idea, he'd never go out in public and flat-out say "I thought the Devil Homura thing was a bad idea!"), it, and the entire rest of the movie it was attached to, was still part of a tacked-on sequel to a complete story, written after said complete story was long since done, for the sake of making more money.

Originally Posted by GDB

Considering it was meant to be a one-and-done single cour series... obviously? I mean, it isn't based on any source material, so really it was being made up as they went along in the first place.

Dude, I think it was quite obvious what he meant there: The movie sets up a future conflict... but they have admitted that they don't have any plans for how to resolve said conflict as of yet. Heck, didn't Urobuchi flat-out say that he won't be writing any more for the series after this? The point is, if they were going to do this anyway, the least they could do is plan out the full story-arc, with an actual concrete plan for how to resolve this mess, before they went and started the story-arc.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by GDB

Considering it was meant to be a one-and-done single cour series... obviously? I mean, it isn't based on any source material, so really it was being made up as they went along in the first place.

What Wanderer probably meant is that the franchise doesn't follow an overarching plot planned ahead. Instead, they are spontaneously adding stuff on the go, which is quite detrimental in term of plot consistency.

Then you shouldn't have watched it in the first place. If the original story meant that much to you, you shouldn't have risked it by expanding. It's not like this is necessary to get the whole story or anything.

Don't be ridiculous. It isn't like anyone could expect such dramatical change for a single character and plotline, unless you are either spoiled or focusing on the worst case scenario.
In fact, it could have been fine if the movie ended as "planned" until they added that plot twist.

The audience is not to blame if they wanted to know what's up with a sequel, then being betrayed by unexpected changes.