[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[chronotrig]

I'd be careful about taking that part too seriously. First off, it's exactly what "Shannon" would be worried about inside her head, so it makes sense that it would be said through Beatrice. Also, that section echoes what Eva said almost word for word, so it's more just bullying Shannon than making a prophesy. It's a metaphor for Shannon's own feelings.
In fact, Kanon comes in a second later and says "stop bullying Shannon". I don't think it would be that big a deal if the miai failed completely. "Shannon" would still be just as insecure, and it wouldn't make her believe in Beatrice any less.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Oliver

P.S.: I wonder if it could have been one Furudo Erika...

Erika is like 14 in 1986. If she was the person talked about in the marriage meeting she'd have to be like 12. That'd make George even more of a pedo than he already is with Shannon.

And don't get me wrong I've thought of it before too it's just very farfetched and stretches coincidences too far.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Erika is like 14 in 1986. If she was the person talked about in the marriage meeting she'd have to be like 12. That'd make George even more of a pedo than he already is with Shannon.

And don't get me wrong I've thought of it before too it's just very farfetched and stretches coincidences too far.

I merely thought that this sort of twist would be exceedingly amusing.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I merely thought that this sort of twist would be exceedingly amusing.

Especially since George totally fails to even recognize her during the game Poor Erika...

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I'd be careful about taking that part too seriously. First off, it's exactly what "Shannon" would be worried about inside her head, so it makes sense that it would be said through Beatrice. Also, that section echoes what Eva said almost word for word, so it's more just bullying Shannon than making a prophesy. It's a metaphor for Shannon's own feelings.
In fact, Kanon comes in a second later and says "stop bullying Shannon". I don't think it would be that big a deal if the miai failed completely. "Shannon" would still be just as insecure, and it wouldn't make her believe in Beatrice any less.

So wait, is that stuff a metaphor or did it really happen?

I'm willing to guess the dates were just made up in the anime, but you'd think ryukishi's oversight would make them at least somewhat trustworthy. This is the sort of continuity question that might get an "Um... crap" response, as happens with some authors who have very complex continuities. Keeping all that stuff straight only happens if you're Tolkien or something.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

So wait, is that stuff a metaphor or did it really happen?

Well, with my theory, Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice are to Sayo as the stakes are to Ange. When kids play with dolls, they tend to cast their own feelings onto the doll. If Sayo feels insecure, then Beatrice is like that nasty voice in your head that tells you to give up on everything. Kind of like the evil Rosa in Maria's mind.


As for continuity, the anime has so many problems it's hard for me to take it seriously... But you'd think they'd have at least asked Ryuukishi directly for the dates. Unless Ryuukishi has no timeline written up, I don't think they can be wrong. Ryuukishi seems to have planned this whole story out since the first episode, so I doubt he'd make such a basic mistake.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Well, with my theory, Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice are to Sayo as the stakes are to Ange. When kids play with dolls, they tend to cast their own feelings onto the doll. If Sayo feels insecure, then Beatrice is like that nasty voice in your head that tells you to give up on everything. Kind of like the evil Rosa in Maria's mind.

And what if that turns out not to be the case? What does it mean then?

My guess on the timeline is that it was probably not run by him and dates were picked that seemed "earlier" by Deen. Wouldn't be the worst thing they've mucked up before.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

And what if that turns out not to be the case? What does it mean then?

My guess on the timeline is that it was probably not run by him and dates were picked that seemed "earlier" by Deen. Wouldn't be the worst thing they've mucked up before.

Between the time discrepancies and the fact that the mirror breaking is never mentioned in any other episode (and never in front of Battler at all), maybe a better question to ask is whether it actually happened at all. Since the shrine was destroyed by lightning, no one can prove whether or not the mirror was smashed beforehand, so the whole incident is a cat box.

I suspect the mirror story might be part of the fake murder plot for EP2. It has the same kind of fishy smell as Rosa's story about killing Beatrice in EP3.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

I suspect the mirror story might be part of the fake murder plot for EP2. It has the same kind of fishy smell as Rosa's story about killing Beatrice in EP3.

The difference is that Rosa's story in episode 3 actually had real life parallel's with a servant's death in Natsuhi's story in episode 5. Rosa even mentions she died 19 years ago. Granted it's a fantasy scene.

The mirror thing only sets up George to make the "lets go get Natsuhi's key and die in her room" squad.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Judoh

The difference is that Rosa's story in episode 3 actually had real life parallel's with a servant's death in Natsuhi's story in episode 5. Rosa even mentions she died 19 years ago. Granted it's a fantasy scene.

The mirror thing only sets up George to make the "lets go get Natsuhi's key and die in her room" squad.

I think the "real life parallels" part is important in both cases. If Team Beatrice has a script that they work off of (and it seems clear that they do, a different one in each episode), then a great way to lend it authenticity would be to have it tie together and explain a bunch of real events. They might even be starting from those events and using them for inspiration, which would explain parallels showing up in the plots in different episodes.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

I think the "real life parallels" part is important in both cases. If Team Beatrice has a script that they work off of (and it seems clear that they do, a different one in each episode), then a great way to lend it authenticity would be to have it tie together and explain a bunch of real events. They might even be starting from those events and using them for inspiration, which would explain parallels showing up in the plots in different episodes.

Or to drag in the Author Theory conspiracy, the fake murder plot scripts in the games are derived from the "real life" research conducted by the authors.

It's funny that Battler learns to think of the epitaph killings as "plotline murders." That seems to be exactly what they're intended to be. Thinking of it that way, was ep1 the only time the plotline "killings" were all conducted according to the script, with the opportunistic killer flawlessly real-killing everyone in turn up to the end without anyone (except perhaps Kanon) catching on?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Between the time discrepancies and the fact that the mirror breaking is never mentioned in any other episode (and never in front of Battler at all), maybe a better question to ask is whether it actually happened at all. Since the shrine was destroyed by lightning, no one can prove whether or not the mirror was smashed beforehand, so the whole incident is a cat box.

The 'violet thunderbolt' and Ep5 opening movie make me think that the 24:00 endgame event is not a bomb but an orbital particle beam shot.

Seriously, it would perfectly explain why it can't happen the earlier night - satellite positioning issues!

[Jan-Poo]

Maybe Krauss' space tourism funding was just a smokescreen used to finance the project of particle beam satellite launch. Can't put it past Kinzo?

Okay let's get serious now...

[Raiza Sunozaki]

But making crack theories is fun... I like the orbital paritcle beam cannon theory.

Anyway, a line Renall said a few pages back got me thinking. He said it's hard to kill a person. Considering there might be only one or two people who do the shooting (when it requires shooting) for the epitaph killings, even if they have a gun, it's still possible for them to be disarmed and consequently killed. Despite once being an ally, I see no reason for the culprit team to not use the dead bodies as part of the epitaph killings. This helps explain how some people's opinion of culprits (example, George for me) end up dead before the game ends.

Even if it's Beato retelling it, I see no reason to doubt the events of the past really happened. Remember, she is trying to get Battler to actually solve the mysteries. So it makes sense to throw in every little hint she can without breaking the boundaries of the clues she can give him. I know Rosa already has plently of trauma from her youth because of her siblings, but considering how psychologically fucked up she is, wouldn't seeing someone fall to their death be a great way to kill any stable mentality she had left? Especially if she believes it's all her fault that this person is dead.

I also really like your explanation for Maria's seemingly split-personality, Oliver. Helps clear up some muddled thoughts I had on her character.

[Oliver]

Speaking of Rosa in particular. I'm trying to remember if I ever saw a complete Rosa-based theory for Ep1 and 2 and drawing a blank.

Does such a thing exist, or is Rosa's status as Best Mom Ever quashing them too effectively?

P.S. Or is it some red that I'm missing?

The identities of all unidentified corpses are guaranteed in red. There has long been discussion that this excludes the identities of all misidentified corpses, but I think that doesn't sit well with 'no body double tricks exist' statement. As Ronove proposed a blue that 'there is no rule saying that a corpse is called a corpse' more discussion flared up.

Obviously, what Ronove has to have meant is that humans, or narration, when not speaking in red, have no obligation not to misidentify the live/death status. If you could do that sort of thing in red it would be useless.

But if the red referring to 'corpses' actually only refers to objective corpses, without naming or otherwise listing them, and some of the 'corpses' seen in a reliable perspective actually aren't dead, the red doesn't really say anything about their identification or even life or death status.

Battler is awfully reluctant to check a pulse himself...

[rogerpepitone]

Well, my Rosa explanation for Episode 2:

My initial interpretation of Rosa's comments about Kinzo were that she claimed to have spoken with him after Shannon and Genji left the room, and Kinzo confirmed their story. (Specifically, she did not claim that all four of them were in the room at the same time.)

First twilight:
Jessica and Kumasawa had set up the chapel as a fun surprise for Maria. (Compare Jessica's "A letter from the Golden witch-sama. I wonder what it contained." to George's assumption that it was related to the conference. See also Kumasawa's comments about "delicious looking pumpkin-shaped cookies".)
Rosa was deeply concerned about the envelope, and waited for the cousins to fall asleep. A little after midnight, Rosa managed to slip into the cousins room and looked through Maria's purse. She found the envelope and removed the key.
I'm not sure exactly why Rosa decided to kill them in the chapel, or how she convinced them to go there.
While most characters are standing outside the chapel door, Kumasawa is decorating Natsuhi's door. (Natushi's door was decorated the same way in Episodes 1 and 2. It was still wet when she found it ~6AM in Episode 1, and was solid dry ~7PM in Episode 2. It was probably done by the same person / at the same time in both Episodes; IMO Kumasawa fits best with that.)
When Rosa saw the words "Happy Halloween for Maria", she panicked a bit. She still had the chapel key. If Maria finds the empty envelope, it looks bad for Rosa. She decided to create the illusion that the key hadn't left Maria's purse. She ran back to the guesthouse alone and quietly gets into the cousins' room. She then fishes through the purse and pretends to remove the key. So long as she can get into the purse before Maria does, it doesn't matter if anybody sees her afterwards, as Battler did.

Second twilight:
Rosa stabbed Jessica in her room and left the door unlocked. (Not sure exactly why.) Genji and/or Shannon locked the door to see who noticed the difference. (Not sure about the magic circle.)
During this time, Kumasawa gave Maria the final envelope, and told her to reveal it late at night, if nobody had solved the epitaph. (The final envelope is nearly the same and appears in very similar conditions in Episodes 1 and 2, so it probably has the same mind behind it.)

Seventh and Eighth twilights:
With Rosa's lie about seeing Kinzo and other slips, Shannon and Genji are convinced she's the killer. They tell the lie about NotKanon to frighten her. Gohda goes along with them, but he's a bad liar.

Fourth, fifth, and sixth twilights:
Battler was sleeping through a good deal of Oct 4, and woke up on his own on Oct 5. Nevertheless, Genji wakes him up around 7 PM knocking on the doors about the corpses. This is much earlier than he fell asleep in Episode 1. Rosa is implied to have prepared dinner while Battler played with Maria. Rosa had sedatives.

Rosa drugged Battler and Maria, then slipped out a window. (The door was barricaded.) She had the master keys, so had no trouble locking or unlocking Natushi's door.

I think my explanation is sound on how, but it's obviously lightweight on why.

[ErenselTheJester]

Hmmm... Now that I think about it, doesn't Rosa seem like a contradictory character to you? I mean, one episode she's as good a mother as any, the next she's an absolute w(b)itch. Now, of course, it might seem irrevelent considering her character, but it seems a little off now that I think about. To me, on the times she's a good mom, she would sacrifice anything for her child, and when she's bad, she would be quit to get rid of her. Now, the reason why I'm questioning this now is because there is no real reason for this. Outside of her being bullied when she was young by her older siblings, there is no actual reasoning behind her personality change. Is the Rosa we see, good or bad, the real Rosa or just some crack interpretation?

[Renall]

Remember that Maria's diary is hopelessly biased, and by extension, so is Ange's view of Rosa. While we can't deny some of Rosa's outbursts, the relationship she has with Maria may be much more complex than we can understand. Maria isn't capable of understanding the stresses Rosa is under, and may blow things out of proportion because that's what kids do.

Some of Rosa's worst moments may be entirely fabricated.

[rogerpepitone]

I've noticed that the scenes when Rosa behaves most positively towards Maria (Rosa Musou) is definitely fantasy; the scenes when she behaves most negatively towards Maria (Ange's interpretation of Maria's diaries) are also doubtful.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Renall

Remember that Maria's diary is hopelessly biased, and by extension, so is Ange's view of Rosa. While we can't deny some of Rosa's outbursts, the relationship she has with Maria may be much more complex than we can understand. Maria isn't capable of understanding the stresses Rosa is under, and may blow things out of proportion because that's what kids do.

Some of Rosa's worst moments may be entirely fabricated.

I agree, but then why does Maria not have Sakutaro in 1986. I can't imagine her just forgetting her favorite stuffed animal and best friend.