Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood - Episode 54 Discussion/Poll

[Kafriel]

The poll is lacking the epic option that describes this episode the best...GARoy really went all out, evil face was well done too. The only thing that kept him from killing Envy were Riza's words, a touching scene (followed by a much less touching one of pitiable Envy committing suicide...). Sloth VS Alex was also very good (and not over yet!), Izumi's entrance and Hoenheim's part at the end makes me wonder, where's ep.55!?

[dec4rhapsody]

Just wanted to point out that the whole "Don't go where I can't follow" was a mistranslation and that the "You can't reduce yourself to this" is actually correct.

According to my memory, the only dialogue change within the Royai scene was that the "Letting you do this/君にそんなマネをさせた" was changed into "bringing you painful memories again/またつらい思いをさせた". They probably wanted it to echo with the flashback, maa.
Sorry, didn't watch the English sub actually but I hope you get what I mean hehe.

Anyways, rated the episode 9/10. My favourite in Brotherhood so far.

[Vicious108]

Originally Posted by dec4rhapsody

Just wanted to point out that the whole "Don't go where I can't follow" was a mistranslation and that the "You can't reduce yourself to this" is actually correct.

According to my memory, the only dialogue change within the Royai scene was that the "Letting you do this/君にそんなマネをさせた" was changed into "bringing you painful memories again/またつらい思いをさせた". They probably wanted it to echo with the flashback, maa.
Sorry, didn't watch the English sub actually but I hope you get what I mean hehe.

Ah thanks for clearing that up.

Damn I spent an entire year believing that to be the correct line. Translators shouldn't take liberties like that, damnit! I guess whoever did it was a massive royai fan, lol.

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

Ah thanks for clearing that up.

Damn I spent an entire year believing that to be the correct line. Translators shouldn't take liberties like that, damnit! I guess whoever did it was a massive royai fan, lol.

Royai is one of those things like KonoSetsu for Negima! fans, where even if you aren't an ardent diehard (I'm not), you probably still pay it lip service, and fully expect something to come of it. Especially considering the only other real (key word) non-squick relationship options there are in the series are EdWin and maybe AlWin. (well, I guess there's Ling/RanFan and Denny/Maria, but those are pretty much foregone conclusions assuming all four survive). Not really any complex interpersonal relationships in this series that don't include Hohenheim.

Where did they get the name for royai, anyway? Is it just as simple as "Roy-" (Roy) + "-ai" (love)? And if so, why doesn't it include Riza? Or is she the "-ai" (as in "hawk-ai")?

[Haladflire65]

Originally Posted by quigonkenny

Where did they get the name for royai, anyway? Is it just as simple as "Roy-" (Roy) + "-ai" (love)? And if so, why doesn't it include Riza? Or is she the "-ai" (as in "hawk-ai")?

Yeah, that's where it comes from. Because Riza's Romanized name is Ho-ku-ai, when written in Japanese it's the same as 'ai (love)'. I found it quite clever, actually.

[lonewolf777]

I always had an issue with the overly goody two-shoes message that's meant to be politically correct or something in this anime. It's probably my only issue with the whole series. I dislike how revenge is made to look like a bad thing. Its effects are greatly exaggerated, like it'll consume you slowly or some such nonsense. I felt from the beginning that Scar's vendetta was 100% justified, and I think Mustang killing Envy was the same.

Also, the beginning of this episode reminded me of something; one of the things I liked about the first series better than this one that's based on the manga is that Ed actually condemned the military for what they did in Ishval. In this series, he kind of is like 'oh well, it happened, too late'.

But this episode was sweet like the other 53

[Haladflire65]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

I always had an issue with the overly goody two-shoes message that's meant to be politically correct or something in this anime. It's probably my only issue with the whole series. I dislike how revenge is made to look like a bad thing. Its effects are greatly exaggerated, like it'll consume you slowly or some such nonsense. I felt from the beginning that Scar's vendetta was 100% justified, and I think Mustang killing Envy was the same.

Think of it this way. What if everyone had let Scar and Roy get their revenges, what if revenge became an 'okay' thing? What would happen if Roy became Furher, and someone close to him, like Riza, got killed? Can he, as the leader of his country, go on another berserk rampage and blow up everyone that had to do with his loss? Vengence is an unhealthy emotion. And this is true especially for Roy, who's aiming for a high and fairly sacred goal, I'd say.

And of course revenge is shown as a 'bad thing' in FMA, this is still a Shounen series... Arakawa can't write a manga gleefully advertising revenge when there'll be kids reading it...

*sigh* Of course these kinds of debates had to pop up again after a year of quiet... I've kind of been fearing this before episodes 53 and 54 were aired...

[FlareKnight]

Originally Posted by dec4rhapsody

Just wanted to point out that the whole "Don't go where I can't follow" was a mistranslation and that the "You can't reduce yourself to this" is actually correct.

According to my memory, the only dialogue change within the Royai scene was that the "Letting you do this/君にそんなマネをさせた" was changed into "bringing you painful memories again/またつらい思いをさせた". They probably wanted it to echo with the flashback, maa.
Sorry, didn't watch the English sub actually but I hope you get what I mean hehe.

Anyways, rated the episode 9/10. My favourite in Brotherhood so far.

Suppose that actually does make sense. Since really no matter what happened she was going to follow him. Just that it could mean that she'd have to kill him and then herself; thus following him into the afterlife.

[Slave0fLife]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

And of course revenge is shown as a 'bad thing' in FMA, this is still a Shounen series... Arakawa can't write a manga gleefully advertising revenge when there'll be kids reading it...

With no intention of raising hell in the forum (), in my opinion, this story stopped being a story for kids when Tucker sacrificed his daughter to maintain his status.

[Haladflire65]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

With no intention of raising hell in the forum (), in my opinion, this story stopped being a story for kids when Tucker sacrificed his daughter to maintain his status.

That's true, but FMA still stays true to typical Shounen when it comes moral issues like revenge and evil, IMO.

Even really young Japanese kids probably read/watch FMA.... Arakawa still needs to be careful when she touches upon those kinds of things.

[Vicious108]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Also, the beginning of this episode reminded me of something; one of the things I liked about the first series better than this one that's based on the manga is that Ed actually condemned the military for what they did in Ishval.

...Wait, you liked that? That's part of the reason why Anime1Ed turned out to be such an angsty, bratty and immature little kid.

Manga Ed knows better than to judge those he sees are good people today for possible mistakes they may have commited in the past, especially when he is completely unaware of the conditions that led to said mistakes and their feelings at the time.

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

That's true, but FMA still stays true to typical Shounen when it comes moral issues like revenge and evil, IMO.

Even really young Japanese kids probably read/watch FMA.... Arakawa still needs to be careful when she touches upon those kinds of things.

I really don't think the way revenge is portrayed in FMA is in any way a result of Arakawa being careful or toning things down because of young readers, or anything of the sort.

Death Note was serialized in a Shounen magazine too and we all know what that was like.

[Haladflire65]

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

I really don't think the way revenge is portrayed in FMA is in any way a result of Arakawa being careful or toning things down because of young readers, or anything of the sort.

Death Note was serialized in a Shounen magazine too and we all know what that was like.

Perhaps not, but Roy being the good-guy character he is, Arakawa had to make this kind of decision for his whole vengence thing... He represents the virtues in a leader, so Arakawa couldn't have him take such a moral fall. That's all I have to say about this topic, really.

[GaimeGuy]

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

It was cool that they had Roy explode on Envy like that and kill him like 10 times in a few seconds. In the manga it did feel like Envy was reduced to fetus form a little too quickly after all the philosopher's stones he acquired from the clones.

Just checked, and....
I counted nineteen flame attacks from when Envy told him to not look down on him to when envy was reduced to his parasite form :P

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

Think of it this way. What if everyone had let Scar and Roy get their revenges, what if revenge became an 'okay' thing? What would happen if Roy became Furher, and someone close to him, like Riza, got killed? Can he, as the leader of his country, go on another berserk rampage and blow up everyone that had to do with his loss? Vengence is an unhealthy emotion. And this is true especially for Roy, who's aiming for a high and fairly sacred goal, I'd say.

I had a very long debate on this topic in another forum, so I'm going to try to keep it short.

Basically, the way I see it is that if someone wrongs you, you have the right to do back to them what they did to you. It stops there, and that's how it should be. No more outside parties, no more close people, etc. Of course, they have the right, but if they choose to forfeit that right and forgive the person who wronged them unconditionally, then they're even better. But revenge should be an ok thing. If someone killed someone important to me, you're gonna tell me I have to let that person off whether I like it or not? I don't think that's fair. And Scar has more of a right to revenge than anyone else. They wiped out his entire people for no reason at all. Then you're gonna tell him that he has to let them go? With the exception of Winry's parents, Scar mostly only killed people connected to the Ishval genocide. So why is that wrong?

As for the example about Roy Mustang, if someone killed Riza, then yes they deserve to die. That's very simple. Does that justify killing everyone and everything? Of course not, nobody said that. But 'an eye for an eye makes everyone blind' is a faulty philosophy. It's not an eye for an eye that makes everyone blind. It's an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye. In other words, it's when one person gets revenge on another, people close to the person that vengeance was taken on stake a claim to revenge; but they don't have that right, cuz their fallen loved one committed a crime and deserved what he got.

In fact, being forced to let go of a claim to revenge is a more unhealthy feeling in the real world. People who have been wronged who don't have justice served to them become incredibly negative and cynical, and take those feelings out on everyone and everything around them.

Edit: Also, with regards to Roy Mustang's ambition, I think his willingness to take vengeance for a fallen comrade is essential to his bid for the spot. A leader of a country who will let his people get killed and forgive? That's not a leader people want, nor is that a realistically consistent example. Any country in the world that is attacked by another seeks retributive measures, unless they're not strong enough to. But if the leader of a country were willing to let slide the killings of his people, he should be looked on as a traitor, simply enough.

Lol.... so much for keeping it short. >_>;

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

...Wait, you liked that? That's part of the reason why Anime1Ed turned out to be such an angsty, bratty and immature little kid.

Yes, in fact, because I felt they deserved it. Personally, I wouldn't forgive people who were complicit with genocide, even if they were subordinate to the situation. Everyone has free will, and they could have quit. Their 'guilt' afterwards isn't enough of a compensation for their actions.

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

Manga Ed knows better than to judge those he sees are good people today for possible mistakes they may conditions have commited in the past, especially when he is completely unaware of the that led to said mistakes and their feelings at the time.

Possible 'mistakes'? A mistake is when you leave the lights on in your car and the battery dies. They carried out genocide. There's really no excuse for that, regardless of your circumstances. Call me petulant if you like, but I don't really care about their conditions or their feelings at the time, cuz they mercilessly murdered women and children for no reason at all.

[Vicious108]

So mercilessly murdering men is a-okay?

[Kazu-kun]

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

So mercilessly murdering men is a-okay?

That's not the point... the issue here is that this series tells you that murdering men who wronged you is worse than murdering women and children (who did nothing to you) just because you did the latter under orders....

Now, you may agree with this message, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to too... it's just Arakawa's opinion, not some universal truth, and you should respect people who don't agree with it.

Personally, I watch this show for the cool factor.... it has great moments from pretty much all the characters (this episode is a pretty good example). But that's it, I couldn't care less about Arakawa's moral message...

[Noe]

RIP to Envy. It was quite tragic.

[Slave0fLife]

Spoiler for too long:

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

I had a very long debate on this topic in another forum, so I'm going to try to keep it short.

Basically, the way I see it is that if someone wrongs you, you have the right to do back to them what they did to you. It stops there, and that's how it should be. No more outside parties, no more close people, etc. Of course, they have the right, but if they choose to forfeit that right and forgive the person who wronged them unconditionally, then they're even better. But revenge should be an ok thing. If someone killed someone important to me, you're gonna tell me I have to let that person off whether I like it or not? I don't think that's fair. And Scar has more of a right to revenge than anyone else. They wiped out his entire people for no reason at all. Then you're gonna tell him that he has to let them go? With the exception of Winry's parents, Scar mostly only killed people connected to the Ishval genocide. So why is that wrong?

As for the example about Roy Mustang, if someone killed Riza, then yes they deserve to die. That's very simple. Does that justify killing everyone and everything? Of course not, nobody said that. But 'an eye for an eye makes everyone blind' is a faulty philosophy. It's not an eye for an eye that makes everyone blind. It's an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye. In other words, it's when one person gets revenge on another, people close to the person that vengeance was taken on stake a claim to revenge; but they don't have that right, cuz their fallen loved one committed a crime and deserved what he got.

In fact, being forced to let go of a claim to revenge is a more unhealthy feeling in the real world. People who have been wronged who don't have justice served to them become incredibly negative and cynical, and take those feelings out on everyone and everything around them.

Edit: Also, with regards to Roy Mustang's ambition, I think his willingness to take vengeance for a fallen comrade is essential to his bid for the spot. A leader of a country who will let his people get killed and forgive? That's not a leader people want, nor is that a realistically consistent example. Any country in the world that is attacked by another seeks retributive measures, unless they're not strong enough to. But if the leader of a country were willing to let slide the killings of his people, he should be looked on as a traitor, simply enough.

Lol.... so much for keeping it short. >_>;



Yes, in fact, because I felt they deserved it. Personally, I wouldn't forgive people who were complicit with genocide, even if they were subordinate to the situation. Everyone has free will, and they could have quit. Their 'guilt' afterwards isn't enough of a compensation for their actions.



Possible 'mistakes'? A mistake is when you leave the lights on in your car and the battery dies. They carried out genocide. There's really no excuse for that, regardless of your circumstances. Call me petulant if you like, but I don't really care about their conditions or their feelings at the time, cuz they mercilessly murdered women and children for no reason at all.

May I suggest a hypothetical situation? Imagine nuclear cold-war scenario, where you knew that if someone didn't do anything, everyone would blow themselves up in a near future. Imagine also that you had the power to prevent this near-apocalipse by killing 6 million people in the world. If you don't, 6 billion people would die as per consequences of this war in a near future + nuclear winter. Would you kill 6 million people to save 6 billion or would you let everyone die?

I think the problem with the whole revenge thing is not the fact that he is taking revenge, but the way his closest friends and followers would look at him - as a unstable, unfit-to-rule, self-satisfying powerful man, who could act on a whim if he felt like it, with no rational reason behind it. From what I have seen, people respect and trust more the people that have a more stable mind, because even though they have all the raw emotion that everyone has, they control it and are able to make rational decisions, not blurred or influenced by those emotions. This is, I believe, a trait of a good leader.

Mustang said what he wanted to be and do to his friends and followers. They believed it was the correct thing, and agreed/decided to help him, trusting what he said. If he were just a guy doing his thing, not asking anybody's opinion and doing whatever he liked, it would be fine according to the way things are. But, if he changes his inicial attitude on a whim, he would automatically be less trustworthy. How can you trust someone to do anything they say they would if they suddenly decide not to?

I come in peace

[Kazu-kun]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

May I suggest a hypothetical situation? Imagine nuclear cold-war scenario, where you knew that if someone didn't do anything, everyone would blow themselves up in a near future. Imagine also that you had the power to prevent this near-apocalipse by killing 6 million people in the world. If you don't, 6 billion people would die as per consequences of this war in a near future + nuclear winter. Would you kill 6 million people to save 6 billion or would you let everyone die?

I come in peace

Well, you're talking about the whole "the end justify the means" thing here. Again, some people may agree with it, some people not, so arguing about it is pretty much meaningless IMO.

Let's go back to the episode.... Alex was epic!!!

[Haladflire65]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I think the problem with the whole revenge thing is not the fact that he is taking revenge, but the way his closest friends and followers would look at him - as a unstable, unfit-to-rule, self-satisfying powerful man, who could act on a whim if he felt like it, with no rational reason behind it. From what I have seen, people respect and trust more the people that have a more stable mind, because even though they have all the raw emotion that everyone has, they control it and are able to make rational decisions, not blurred or influenced by those emotions. This is, I believe, a trait of a good leader.

Mustang said what he wanted to be and do to his friends and followers. They believed it was the correct thing, and agreed/decided to help him, trusting what he said. If he were just a guy doing his thing, not asking anybody's opinion and doing whatever he liked, it would be fine according to the way things are. But, if he changes his inicial attitude on a whim, he would automatically be less trustworthy. How can you trust someone to do anything they say they would if they suddenly decide not to?

I come in peace

This was kind of what I was trying to say in my previous post. Mustang wants to lead his entire freaking country. The point was that he strayed from his original path. That was what Riza and Ed were telling him.