|
View Poll Results: Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Rating | |||
Perfect 10 | 87 | 50.88% | |
9 out of 10 : Excellent | 54 | 31.58% | |
8 out of 10 : Very Good | 14 | 8.19% | |
7 out of 10 : Good | 7 | 4.09% | |
6 out of 10 : Average | 3 | 1.75% | |
5 out of 10 : Below Average | 3 | 1.75% | |
4 out of 10 : Poor | 1 | 0.58% | |
3 out of 10 : Bad | 0 | 0% | |
2 out of 10 : Very Bad | 0 | 0% | |
1 out of 10 : Painful | 2 | 1.17% | |
Voters: 171. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
2012-01-14, 04:24 | Link #361 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
Quote:
having been sometime since I last watched this episode it was a welcome reminder of the season's early strengths in the outline of characters (Irisviel and Saber's discussions) and the sense of eventuality (Lancer's introduction), which was not so imminent after all. As with the added content of episode 11 I found the use of dialogue and scenario to explain and clarify integral or underlying meaning was better structured in the start of the season. In the latter part the loquacious dialogue with little addition to character concept attenuated progression. anyway, regarding scenes with Iskander, though it is certainly possible I missed the detailed alluded there was a discussion with Waver where Iskander deliberates on whether purchasing modern war machines (ten stealth bombers) or the country itself would be more advantageous. From this outline it would be sound if rather necessary to infer accordingly that war is at least as much a part of Iskander's methodology as any other. There is nothing wrong with ambition per se, inasmuch as pursuits are suitable and tempered in principled balance to other matters. Quote:
although having suggested some departure from the material as a cohesive whole that is not to say Iskander's kingship speech is in fact contrary to the ethos he was intended to represent. Without dwelling too much on these differences, inasmuch as Iskander's (specifically: kingship) ideas are taken to portray this dimension of character it would follow the reason his war party (also specifically for this category of ideas: the army is not his "people" in the fullest sense) is treasured is because of its serviceability. To draw some contrast, if Iskander placed his people above all else then his wish would be similar in kind to Saber's endeavour, yet for any likelihood they might have it will be on this one point they are wholly distinguished. Quote:
I imagine that aspect is in part intentionally defining of Saber's known identity but would differentiate between necessary and sufficient causes for the outcome. In other words, I suspect there is a dualistic process where, originally, at the end of the day the kingdom withdrew from Saber rather than Saber failing the the kingdom. As above these are wholly different matters that are best clearly demarcated. Presumably there is a qualitative difference between "destroying villages" and "sacrificing people" to be further edified with respect to Saber's code. The other comparable facets between Iskander and Saber mentioned are interesting comparisons in their own right which if immediate relevance in tangential could at this time be left aside for other discussions. Quote:
in these instances it is apparent Iskander is firstly interested in whether he can influence outcome independent of battle. This is not for the furtherance of peace but the expediency of avoiding conflict by the same degrees to what can be accumulated without expending force. The strategy is obvious and it is not surprising that everyone has refused the offer of allowing them to forgo their aims to advance Iskander's. across examples of past and presen events Iskander has either actively or passively facilitated conflict where it serves purposes or when diplomacy in direction with his objectives are not to be met. The usurped kingdoms were retained (with Iskander as king) being the foundation of his empire, the lands returned were already conquered, those who joined him thereafter had no more to gain than to side with the one who had taken away (to belabour a point you have made - reorientated...) their previous (...notions of...) existence. as it is however, just about any interpretation of these events and their causes will be determined in relation to Iskander's expressed intention. Though there is some room to interpret otherwise doing so has to ignore a range of statements concerning long-term intentions and possible procedures to those ends. But whilst I don't think it is feasible to derive a consilient view of Iskander's character it does seem plausible to finely qualify his persona so that it won't be obscured by generalised identity. To put it into your words, the world could always use more onii-chans of this sort; regrettably the writing is promiscuous (a pervasive flaw of anime in my estimation - ideas, metaphor and symbolism are often used in a fickle halfhearted way) so that the various disparate elements delimit observation of interpersonal character as shown towards others with understanding and sympathetic mindset from a relatively unique perspective. Quote:
there is certainly some difficulty in knowing what to assume of a heroes' identity as it pertains to their purported history and namesake. The issue is probably further confounded because different heroes share approximation with the historical figure to varying degrees of relevance. In some cases semblance would appear to be limited to periods of their known identity, whereas in others it is the tradition and mythos which the hero personifies. Last edited by Edict; 2012-01-14 at 04:35. |
|||||
2012-01-15, 03:52 | Link #362 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Saber's wish to save her country and rewrite history? It'll lead to bloodshed too. The Anglo-Saxon people are the ones you know as England now. Those were Saber's enemies. Hell, there're high chances United States won't even exist if she gets with her wish granted (since her Britain is the Romano/Welsh one). Sure, Rider's wish could potentially kill people, however, it could also kill less than Saber's (considering the ramifications of his real wish: Oceanus). Once again you believe that Rider's conquering has to do with destruction and with humiliation when he explained it's the opposite. Could it happen? Sure, it could! But from the headstart, Saber's wish is more guaranteed to fuck up the world than Rider's. Let's not even touch Gilgamesh's... Quote:
Rider's completely out of place because he wants to save Saber, Lancer, etc. Rider only spills blood when he has fatigued all other ways of dialogue. Did you miss that he wanted to negotiate all the time while Saber is sword-happy at drop of hat and even Lancer was annoyed that he bailed her ass from his spear in episode 4? You're once again mistaking that Rider doing as he pleases = evil or bad. He is disgusted when Gil shows sadistic thrill to watch Saber suffer under her crushing burden. He lives the day without holding back, but his amusements are mostly harmless (hell, he's living right now and what he does with his time? Does he go making children furniture? No, he orders a T-shirt, he reads books, watches TV, buys video games, charms an elderly couple...). Carpe Diem. Doing what you want is only problematic when the nature of the person is evil like Caster. However, Rider's Neutral Good. His desires and wants are portrayed as pretty benevolent and that's why he was beloved and followed by so many. Because he was a grand, straightforward, simple man with a vision and a dream they could share. He compares Clinton to Darius, his opponent in the past, but speaks of Darius to Waver in the novels as a good friend of his. Quote:
There aren't good causes for bloodshed. It's a sad inevitability sometimes.
__________________
|
||||
2012-01-15, 04:07 | Link #363 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
With the Cult of Personality, as seen no only in his Army, but also the effect his has on the audience, Rider could take over the world without a lot of bloodshed.
Add to this who he his, and what he did historically. I am under the impression that if they is any one man that will be respected in the old parts of the world (everything from Greece to Eygpt, to India) it would be Alexander the Great. You don't get "the Great" title lightly. Even old Persia would probably respect him (as oppose to Gil). He probably doesn't need his army. All he needs is the right sort of political backing, either from a major country, or if he's really good, revamp the UN until people want him to lead them. Where they want what he wants, and he wants what they want. He might take over the world...and then discover space travel, and other planets. If he wasn't fiction and he wanted to go out there and take those mainly just to see them with his own eyes, walk them with his own feet. I'd follow him.
__________________
|
2012-01-15, 04:31 | Link #364 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Quote:
Unlike Gilgamesh who appreciates the pleasure of watching a grand tragedy, Rider hates it. He is not the first or only Servant who would show fixation for modern weaponry. Quote:
Anyway, none of the kings ever mentions the people outside their army. At most, there are mentions in Fate of the villages Saber destroyed in her own country to support her military units overseas. And the miracle of Excalibur has nothing to do with the average citizen either, it’s all about the heroes or warriors in the battlefield, their glory and ideals. She envied Rider because he could bond with his followers personally while she couldn’t. If you want to sum her strength, is on the glory/ideals, Iskandar's strength is on relationships/bonds, while Archer's strength is on treasures. The division between Rider and Saber is that Iskandar never sacrificed any human whim or emotion he had, instead he pushed himself to live at his fullest. He never aspired to be anything else but the pinnacle of a human ruler to guide his people into that kind of life. Saber, when its said she sacrificed herself for the kingdom, is that she threw away her human emotions and became an ideal to rule. While Rider shared his dream and led his people who were sharing the effort but willingly; Saber built a wall and carried it on herself to the point even the son that loved her so much was at loss to the point he tried to slay her over a misunderstanding. Just like Saber, Rider paid the price too, since he died out of an exotic disease he got in his travel. Both of them occasionally stepped on the minority for the sake of the majority. The two of them are good people. There are also contextual differences but that is the gap between them. At the end of her reign, Saber saw her kingdom crumbled, her followers betraying her and regretted. At the end of his life, Rider died young and in his best years, adored by thousands. So in a way, Saber doesn’t feel Rider who had an enviable lifestyle can understand her regrets. Rider mourns, but he doesn’t regret. Quote:
Without the glue of communication, all systems fall. I should know. I work as a communicator. :P Quote:
This good nature of his is a flaw, IMO. Because Servants MUST die to have their wish granted. Rider seems stubborn to avoid this because of his ‘greedy’ nature. Quote:
The ones who joined realized they too wanted to explore the world. It was that dream of childhood they cast away to embrace their titles and joyless duties. They joined Iskandar because he show them what they really wanted: see the edge of the world. Quote:
Saber and Rider in the end do seek the same: a utopia. Saber’s Utopia is Avalon, unreachable heaven of peace and ideal quietness. Rider’s utopia is Oceanus, the boundless journey in motion to delight of what there is of good and thriving in life. That's why she stayed, trying to build her country into that vision. That's why he left, trying to extend his kingdom until he could find his vision. Both are worthy dreams. Different but well natured, rooted in the beliefs of their eras and contexts. To fulfill them, both have spilled blood. Arthuria and Iskandar are fundamentally noble characters who love their followers and are super idealistic people. Their wishes reflect that, Saber wants to revert the destruction but for what? Yeah. Rider wants another chance to live, but for what? Yeah. Conquest/fighting off invading armies were means, not goals. Quote:
Quote:
This too. Alexander has rank A charisma... Just atop as it goes. Any living politician has... lower than rank E (except maybe that Clinton guy?!), Nasuverse wise lawl. So he will win over the crowds pretty easily. I think Waver mentions that Rider is really adaptable to the modern lifestyle.
__________________
Last edited by Thess; 2012-01-15 at 05:13. |
||||||||
2012-01-19, 10:12 | Link #365 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
|
I've combined statements and rearranged others to organise responses, please correct me if I have misconstrued or overlooked something important to the discussion at hand.
Quote:
one of the kings differs quintessentially in their emphasis of just rule and protection of all as defining of the king''s true duties. As before, without knowing intentions or the the context, I cannot specifically comment on the actions described. Though it isn't all that appropriate to unknowingly speculate about specific ideas, a tentative guess is that purpose was not one of conquest but presumably to quell or meet an oncoming threat in advance of incursion. Quote:
if I understand the background then Saber believed that adhering to the paragon of kinghood would entail loyalty and respect, which can be thought true yet fully understanding just what the same means -- even with the upmost intent -- cannot be so impossibly simple. The ideal king is not simply the ideal saint or knight (as Saber had first expected) but one who in knowing how ideals relate to and thereby enrich humanity unites virtue with understanding. I would surmise Saber's act to be king not only superseded her human life with its idealised aspirations but fate of the same as well. Quote:
it would seem probable then that the outcome reflects the multiplicity of influences with their culminating not in misunderstanding but lack of reciprocal unity. If Saber's commitment both upheld and safeguarded the kingdom, yet the same was not duly reciprocated then it becomes no longer possible to serve in the fullest capacity. As the one given to rule by the sword, and having shown this much in deed rather than speech, predicaments, as they were, somehow contrived on the later belie divisions that would not be so casually resolved though any amendment of misunderstanding. Quote:
haha well it is noteworthy that a few heroes share a value for battle on an even field. Tactically speaking Iskander chancing an attack could have polarised what was a transitioning set of arrangements. Whereas interjecting at the time he did restored the previous status quo as it was already predisposed (i.e. to battle each other) and if nothing else continued the opportunity to better gauge the capabilities of those involved. Quote:
explicit formulations (e.g. the king's speeches of episode 11) tend to frame attributions (ideas, motivations, acts etc), in conjunction with an expectation of holistic structure not all abstractions however astute are going to be consonant. Elucidation of Iskander's aspirations and his (in)actions evince a pattern of character concept which varies in cogency with the otherwise prima facie propensity to consign nations to war if deemed expedient. Depending on how these polarities are perceived a basis for contradiction of one form or other is somewhat ascertainable. Furthermore, although the writing could perforce subsume characteristics to aid consistency the rendition is at times construed to avoid outright portrayal of tyranny, such as incidental wars of conquest, whilst at others lapses into less equivocal depictions. Which taken as an observation of character concept not so soundly combined into a single representation would partially denote disparities for what they are. in short, with consideration of the text's apparent divergences (and/or liberal composition), it becomes sufficiently reasonable to arrive at an appreciation of concepts independent of their (conceivably discrepant) orientation. Of course individual appraisal determines whether that is necessary or useful concerning Iskander's multifaceted characterisation. Last edited by Edict; 2012-01-19 at 10:43. |
|||||
2012-01-26, 05:56 | Link #366 |
螢
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
This episode really catch my attention, not because of the animation or plot, but the discussion between the three knights. I share exactly the same view-point of Saber, and I fully expected to walk the path of solitude of high virtue, and to sacrify my life for the world. However, what rider said is also correct, in the I do not expect any normal people would want / like to live this kind of life. In that case, it only means that being a king will be very different from what our world are expecting. Just because most people will not like to live these kinds of lives do not mean it cannot exist (it just means most people would not like to be a king), and that it does not mean society will collape because of a person's self-less delication to others.
|
2013-12-20, 21:42 | Link #368 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Age: 39
|
I'm not sure if Nasu is talking about a real knight from the legend there, or if he's just saying that some such knight exists. It might possibly be Mordred, though, although if it were you'd expect him to be referred to as more than just "a knight".
__________________
|
2013-12-20, 23:02 | Link #370 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
|
One thing going against Berserker though is that he left because of his affair with Guinevere, not because of the reason Saber stated (even though he does share those sentiments).
Damn this vagueness, I wish there was a clear cut answer to this. I have to know! |
2013-12-20, 23:07 | Link #371 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
We know it's not Berserker, because in the Irisviel specials it shows his reaction to the other knight turning their back on Saber.
I originally thought it was him too until that. Afterwards, I figured Mordred, but after reading about the actual lore more, I don't think that's the case either. Mordred was able to lead the coup and take the throne because he was a respected knight of the round table. If he had abandoned his post, in a sense, then I don't see the people flocking to him as they did. Other knights, perhaps, but not the people. Thus, I believe it's like Cherry Lover said, and it's just some nameless knight. After all, depending on the version of lore, the Round Table had between 150 and 380 some knights. It's not like it was a 12-man squad or anything where we'd know all their names. |
|
|