I really love Char's Counterattack. Char's Neo Zeon

>>15077344
Man the Zeon characters sans Char were shit in this

>>15077374
nope

>>15077344
>She isn't THAT bad and I think Tomino thought there is some important message with her character... though I'm still not sure what.

The message was that Tomino was SICK OF THESE KIDS AND THEIR LIES

>>15077344
>I think Tomino thought there is some important message with her character...

Honestly, she becomes far more insufferable once you do understand the message behind her character.

>>15077382
not an argument

>>15077398
Do explain.

>>15077609

She's basically the same character as Reccoa; Didn't get the affection she wanted from Amuro, so she decides to defect to Neo-Zeon and make things miserable for everyone.

What Tomino was trying to say with these events is that parental neglect will make monsters of your children, but given the circumstances of the story I can't imagine how you are supposed to sympathize with the demon child and not Amuro who got shat on for not taking time out of his busy schedule to look after some spoiled shitter.

>>15077623
Yeah, it takes so much precious time to be nice to someone.

>>15077632

Amuro was,already nice to her. As was Chan, if a little confused since she didn't quite realise Quess' intentions. They were just rather firm, since Amuro didn't want to be her father figure given he had enough in his plate as is, and Chan didn't think she belonged in a warzone and Quess was being fairly confrontational to her.

I also don't feel her use has anything to do with parental neglect, since while she was a brat, she was a pretty regular brat until Char came along. She only became dangerous and a monster when he gave her weapons and reinforced all her bullshit.

No, I think the message with her was more that kids can have their ideals and convictions corrupted easily and they can be used by adults during conflict resulting in ugly outcomes for everyone. More of the "kids are the future, but adults fuck it up for them" message Tomino has always pushed in Gundam.

Plus, Hathaway, Gyunei and Quess are almost certainly meant to be an analogue of Amuro, Char and Lalah - with the film reflecting that things cam be even more tragic for them if the adults around them are even more callous and malicious. And making Char and Amuro in to the adults that have funked up a new generation by involving them in their problems.

>>15077344
>Nanai is hot
Finally, I've found my fellow.

>>15077344
Nu Gundam and Sazabi are such a great mobile suits, it hurts me to watch the last battle, it was so horrible and ugly.

Amuro's a nice guy but he's autistic as fuck. Char on the other hand was born into intrigue, so he knows how to manipulate others and project charm and confidence.

And that's why all the little girls flock to Char. They know they're to weak to survive in hostile environs alone, and he's better at making others feel secure than Amuro, who can barely control his own feelings.

>>15077810

Except Quess only sought Char after she felt like Amuro rejected her, and Lalah was understanding of Amuro and seemed more emotionally open to him than Char.

>>15077632
As said Amuro was already nice to her, but there's a different between being nice and catering to all of her desires and since she is a spoiled brat she can't get how people don't want to drag her rich ass around whenever she wants to.

Besides Amuro post 0079 has always been callous and cold, I guess considering what happened to him in MSG makes it understandable, but not to spoiled Quess I suppose.

File: 87482280.jpg (364KB, 523x739px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 523x739px

>>15077344
Char is gay

>>15077814
Lalah and Amuro have Newtype telepathy to get through the twice-shy awkwardness, she's a special case they know each other for what they really are. Of course, then she died in the crossifre and everything went downhill from there.

>>15077839

Quess and Char are both newtypes too. Didn't stop her being blind to his manipulations.

>>15077761
>he had enough in his plate as is
It's the sort of excuses adults make.
Being polite to someone is not the same thing as kindness.
Chan was young and inexperienced herself.
Amuro knew very well what Quess's problem was. The only thing he had on his plate were his own emotional problems. He felt insecure of himself and of his abilities to take care of himself and other people so he chose to just evade those problems that make him feel inept and uncomfortable. This is a maladaptive coping mechanism that tends to make things worse in the long run. If he adopted it it is because he was never had the chance to learn how to handle properly close relationships because he was neglected just as Quess was.
She was angry and miserable from the start and being given a chance to express her anger didn't make her any more of a "brat" or a "monster" than she was originally. If you say that people that give children guns are more at fault than the people that make them want to use them you are putting the cart before the horse. Is it OK to mistreat children as long as we don't give them an outlet for their anger?
But most importantly if you approach the problem with the presumption that adults are "callous" and "malicious" you are missing the heart of the matter. Do people just turn evil when they when they turn twenty or something? Those "evil" adults are also people who were never taught how to understand or express their emotions appropriately so there is no reason they should be any better at handling their lives than children are. Still the expectations that society ingrains on our minds since early childhood is that adults should be able to completely handle all of their problems all by themselves without needing to depend on anyone. It is exactly this mindset that makes many adults ashamed to ask for help and thus unwilling to face their problems straight on and incapable of changing their behavior even if they realize it causes pain to people around them.

>>15077816
>catering to all of her desires
And what according to you were those oh-so-horrible desires that she had?

>>15077623
>I can't imagine how you are supposed to sympathize with the demon child and not Amuro
Another wrongful assumption you make is that on any given problem you are only allowed to sympathize with one of the sides.

>>15077816
>Amuro post 0079 has always been callous and cold, I guess considering what happened to him in MSG makes it understandable, but not to spoiled Quess I suppose
So if Amuro is spoiled or callous or cold this is understandable because of his circumstances but if other people are spoiled or callous or cold this is not understandable because they don't have circumstances?

>>15077632
>>15077863
>>15077884
>>15077919
>>15077934
Someone's angry.

>>15077945
I prefer the term righteous indignation.

>>15077863

> Being polite to someone is not the same thing as kindness.

He took Hathaway and Quess around Londenion with him even though he didn't have to and was nice to them the whole time. That's not just being polite.

> Amuro knew very well what Quess's problem was. The only thing he had on his plate were his own emotional problems.

And trying to stop Char from dropping a second asteroid on Earth, fighting a war which he and his fellows had little to no support for from their own government. Or are we only counting emotional problems as problems now, and not external ones like the plot of the film?

> She was angry and miserable from the start

She wasn't really miserable at any point. She was angry at her Dad and stepmom, but not miserable. If anything, she was actually quite happy for much of the start of the film in Hathaway's presence.

> and being given a chance to express her anger didn't make her any more of a "brat" or a "monster" than she was originally.

You'll note that I didn't just say that giving her a weapon made her a monster, but that reinforcing her bullshit was part of it. Char fed her desire for independence and recognition, while ignoring any problems she was causing. When she comes to him complaining that people are being mean to her for instance (i.e. looking to treat her as a soldier, which is what she now is), he lets her feel like emotional reaction is the correct one and that the others are wrong, reinforcing her love for him while turning her against her comrades.

> Is it OK to mistreat children as long as we don't give them an outlet for their anger?

When did anyone mistreat Quess? The closest thing we get is that her father is distant and in a relationship with someone besides her biological mother - not even an illicit one, but an open relationship with her, and no other woman in sight. Neither of which qualify as mistreatment.

>>15078393

> Do people just turn evil when they when they turn twenty or something?

No, but they normally have more power to affect the lives of other children as adults than as children themselves.

>>15077884

Well for a start, she wanted Chan to simply walk away from her relationship with Amuro and let Quess herself have him. Or at least her shot at him. She also didn't take kindly to the mechanics and pilots on board ship trying to get her to let them get on with their job if I recall. All pretty tepid and normal teenager stuff, but still pretty selfish.

>>15077934

Wait...are you surprised that a former child soldier with emotional problems because of his part in a war garners more sympathy than a teenager whose emotional problems appear to stem from the fact her father isn't quite close enough to her? Are you saying that they should get equal sympathy?

>>15077344
>Quess is certainly a weak point, but I can forgive her. She isn't THAT bad and I think Tomino thought there is some important message with her character... though I'm still not sure what.

That teenagers need decent guidence and attention or they'll find that elsewhere and the results could be pretty shitty depending on who they find.

Same goes for Hathaway too kinda. At least that's how I see it.

Also yeah Nanai is hot. Wish she also got more development she could of been interesting, heard she got more in the Novelzations.

>>15077344
>gyunei is hot
What does he mean by this

everything about it is pretty sick except for the fact that, at least in the dub, it has some weird lines that completely assassinate Char's character. that and the fact that for no real reason he gave Amuro the psychoframe data that made him lose in the end just because he was being ballsy which doesn't make sense because Char hasn't acted like that since 0079

Quess is fucking shit too

>>15078547
>that and the fact that for no real reason he gave Amuro the psychoframe data that made him lose in the end just because he was being ballsy which doesn't make sense because Char hasn't acted like that since 0079

That's because his time in the AEUG, he really didn't have a rival, and was playing the backseat, in a way his time as Quattro he was trying to run from him self even more than he was as Char Aznable, why do you think he pretty much turned down the opportunity he could of used to gain more spacenoid support, and left it mostly upto Blex until Dakar?

Besides that he was wanting an equal fight with Amuro the only person he really saw as a rival, and the only person he really hadn't bested. Not saying it's superb writing or the best way to have done it (We really needed something to bridge between Z and CCA with him) but the ground work is there for why he did it.

>>15078393
>That's not just being polite.
OK. Let's call it nice.He could have taken them to Londenion or Disneyland for all the difference it makes. This is not the emotional connection that a child is looking for from their parents.
> The closest thing we get is that her father is distant and in a relationship with someone besides her biological mother.
See, it's not enough to just provide nourishment and shelter to your children. Children are not born with all the knowledge in the world - they need to be taught how to respond to unexpected situations and how to regulate their emotions, they need to learn that the world is a secure place that they can safely explore and that other people will be willing to cooperate with them - those things don't just spontaneously pop up in their heads - and the only people they can depend on to learn that are their parents. If you only meet your parents' indifferent faces it doesn't matter if they took you to Disneyland or bought you a brand new Ferrari. I haven't seen a happy child react with aggressiveness to other people. If Quess just wanted people to fulfill all of her whims she could have stayed with her father - he looked like he would have been glad to do anything she wants to make her shut up. She just wanted someone to listen to her and if she believed the only way to get someone to pay attention to her is to be a brat that is what her parents taught her. Children of divorcees tend to not think their parents care about them very much. Do you think this is just a Hollywood meme?
Amuro is also a child of divorcees and like it or not this at the bottom of his problems.
Of course, external sources of stress can be very frustrating too and I am not denying that they are the immediate reason for his neurotic behavior but if he despises the Federation so much, feels personally involved in the conflict to such an extent and lacks any competent emotional support it is all due to his personal emotional issues.

>>15078547
>it has some weird lines that completely assassinate Char's character
Sounds fun. Explain further.

>>15078547
>he was being ballsy which doesn't make sense because Char hasn't acted like that since 0079
What exactly do you mean by that? He did a lot of dumb shit in Zeta too.

>>15078398
>but they normally have more power to affect the lives of other children as adults than as children themselves.
Which doesn't make them "callous" or "malicious".

>are you saying that they should get equal sympathy
Are we going to measure our fictional misery dicks? According to what absolute principle do you award sympathy?
Amuro had a hard life. No one is arguing about that. He is just reacting according to circumstances and so is Quess. She is a child and she was never taught any discipline. How is she supposed to understand the problems of an adult? And if you think that makes her spoiled wouldn't you say that at her age Amuro was just as spoiled for the exact same reasons?

>>15078558

> Let's call it nice.

I'm not sure what else you'd call it

> This is not the emotional connection that a child is looking for from their parents.

That might be because he's not her parent. He's not trying to be her parent. He doesn't want to be her parent. There's no expectation from anyone that he should be her parent. So why would it matter that taking her around Londenion isn't the same emotionally as parenting? He didn't try and take her to fix her, he took her because he was going and he thought taking Hathaway and Quess would be fun for them from the looks of it.

> Children of divorcees tend to not think their parents care about them very much. Do you think this is just a Hollywood meme?

No, but then I don't know that her parents divorced. The film makes no mention of her mother at all. She could have simply died for all the audience knows. Nor do I think it's particularly fair to characterize her father as someone who just wanted her to shut up and leave him alone. Putting aside that he brought her to space when he didn't have to, he was obviously under stress the entire time we see him in the film given the situation with Neo Zeon.

> if he (Amuro) despises the Federation

I didn't say he did. Nor did his character. I only said the Federation weren't supporting his/Londo Bell's part in the conflict. Which they weren't.

>>15078608

> Which doesn't make them "callous" or "malicious".

Okay. I never said it did. I said Quess encountered callous and malicious adults, not that all adults were callous and malicious. Which Char certainly was, and even Nanai was to a degree, since she didn't seem to like Quess and recognized Quess as a threat to Nanai's relationship with Char.

>>15078709

> Are we going to measure our fictional misery dicks?

Sure, if that's what you want to call taking context in to account. Regardless, I'm pretty sure an ex-child soldier gets more sympathy than a rich teenager from most people.

> According to what absolute principle do you award sympathy?

None. I award it according to the perceived suffering and emotional problems I see in each case. Which isn't absolute, but is how sympathy works.

> How is she (Quess) supposed to understand the problems of an adult?

If she'd had better support from individuals who understood her and, quite importantly here, had the time and freedom (so not Amuro) to help her she'd almost certainly have just gone through a teenage rebellion phase before becoming a pretty normal adult. She didn't though - she had Char.

> wouldn't you say at her age Amuro was just as spoiled

Just as? No. For the simple reason that Amuro was a shut-in pushed in to a war as a matter of survival, while Quess chose to be part of a war to lash out at the world and her father for not meeting her expectations. Amuro was still a brat at times during the early show, but again, I think that's pretty normal of teenagers. Especially ones in stressful situations.

File: quessdrinkd.jpg (52KB, 359x507px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 359x507px

Quess is pure waifu, plz do not bully.

File: 1478328180573.jpg (496KB, 900x662px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 900x662px

Absolutely lewd

File: hathaway-noa.jpg (26KB, 304x549px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 304x549px

remember, this guy becomes a ruthless terrorist leader because his waifu died.

File: quessssss.jpg (213KB, 1024x1404px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1024x1404px

Moshi Moshi

File: 14781262541003.jpg (156KB, 683x800px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 683x800px

Char love men

File: chanagis.jpg (46KB, 359x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 359x500px

she is the real enemy of CCA
>drives away quess, making hathway cahse her
>kills Astonaige
>kills quess
>makes Hathaway kill her
>becomes a space T and stops axis from saving humanity
>kills Amuro and Char by turning them into green space dust

>>15078709
>He's not trying to be her parent. He doesn't want to be her parent. There's no expectation from anyone that he should be her parent.
Exactly. That is what I'm trying to say too. I'm glad we agree about something.
>Nor do I think it's particularly fair to characterize her father as someone who just wanted her to shut up and leave him alone.
Nor do I. That doesn't make him a good parent.
>I didn't say he did.
I did.
>which Char certainly was, and even Nanai was to a degree
Aha. So Amuro is rightfully traumatized because of his shitty childhood which is understandable and Chen has no obligations to deal with the bullshit of some bratty teenager but Char and Nanai are evil.

>>15078788

> That doesn't make him a good parent

And nothing we know makes him a bad parent. At most all we can say is that he's preoccupied during the sliver of time we see him, for what I would personally say are understandable reasons.

> I did

Okay. Then I'd ask why you think he despises the Federation.

> but Char and Nanai are evil

I didn't call them evil, nor would I say being malicious and callous is the same thing, only that it indicates that they don't have Quess' best interests at heart and are rather indifferent to her interests in general. I think there's reasons for it, but I think they're that regardless. And that those reasons don't actually excuse their actions, even if they explain them. Nor do I think Amuro and Chan's actions are excused by their own reasons. The difference being that I don't think Amuro and Chan's actions need excusing, only explaining, where Char and Nanai's do.

>>15078713
You are free to feel as you want. What I'm trying to say is that they both acted understandably under their circumstances. Do you disagree with that?

>>15078817

Sure. All of their actions are easy enough to understand or empathize with to me, even if I find some easier to do than others. I don't think Quess is hard to understand or empathize with, nor did I ever mean to imply otherwise - only that her actions are fairly standard teenage rebellion exacerbated by the circumstances she finds herself in and that she is used by those around her to her own detriment ultimately.

>>15078827

And by sure I obviously meant: I agree with you, since re-reading your post starting with sure makes it seems otherwise. Which was dumb of me.

>>15078804
>And nothing we know makes him a bad parent.
I'm pretty sure the implication was the opposite of that but I'm too lazy to go trough the movie scene by scene right now just to prove it. But it's Tomino so I don't see why we even need to go that far.
>Why you think he despises the Federation.
That has been consistently his characterization. In 0079 he despises the Federation for using him and not caring about him. In Zeta he despises the Federation for using him and not caring about him. In CCA he despises the Federation for using him and not caring about him. He also seems to have a problem with authority figures.
>And that those reasons don't actually excuse their actions, even if they explain them.
What are those reasons? What is the difference between excusing and explaining?

>>15078832
>Which was dumb of me
Not in the least.

>>15078844

> I'm pretty sure the implication was the opposite of that

And I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

> it's Tomino so I don't see why we even need to go that far

Yea, I mean he never includes good parents in his Gundam works. Kamille's mom was absolutely awful. Seabooks too. And Usos.

> That has consistently been his characterization.

Not really. He disliked what the Federation did to him, but that doesn't mean he disliked the Federation as a whole or disagreed with their policies or what have you.

> What are those reasons?

Char's being a lack of a complete childhood and parental figures, along with spending a lot of his life as a soldier and spy. Nanai's being jealousy.

> What is the difference between excusing and explaining?

Explaining only details what the reasons are, excusing giving a pass for their behavior based on their reasons.

>>15078864
>excusing is giving a pass
That is in fact a circular definition.
>Char's being a lack of a complete childhood and parental figures, along with spending a lot of his life as a soldier and spy. Nanai's being jealousy.
Char is an almost hopeless case but do you really thing that acting mildly hostile to someone because they are trying to steal your man is inexcusable?

>>15078904

> That is in fact a circular definition

I fail to see how.

> do you really think that acting mildly hostile to someone because they are trying to steal your man is inexcusable?

When part of that mildly hostile is helping your man turn a teenager in to a soldier then I do yes. Not that that reasoning is necessary, since Nanai has no real reason not to recognize a puppy crush, has no real reason to think it's a real threat and should be willing to humor it, like most people do when they come across a teenager harboring an adolescent crush.

>>15078918
Well I can't find an official definition of "give a pass" but the it's general definition seems to be "not hold responsible" or "disregard as trivial" which seems to coincide with the general definition of "excuse".

>When part of that mildly hostile is helping your man turn a teenager in to a soldier then I do yes.
We are going into a kind of abstract territory here. For example you could also say that the behaviour of Neo Zeon soldiers is inexcusable because they support mass murder. It is theoretically true but it's inhumane and fails to take into consideration many sociological and psychological factors. In fact I can say that about our whole argument.

>Nanai has no real reason not to recognize a puppy crush, has no real reason to think it's a real threat
I think she has a very good reason to feel it's a real threat.

>>15078998

> the it's general definition seems to be "not hold responsible" or "disregard as trivial" which seems to coincide with the general definition of "excuse".

That would be another way to phrase it yes. Note that my definition didn't include giving a pass for someone because they deserved a pass or something, which would be circular reasoning. My definition only retermed it because you asked for for the difference in my mind, so I gave it.

> you could also say that the behavior of Neo Zeon soldiers is inexcusable

I would in fact say that, because they continued to support someone who had already dropped a rock on Lhasa and publicly announced plans to drop another. I would also say that there's a difference in the ability to effect events of the average soldier and a top brass like Nanai.

> I think she has a very good reason to feel it's a threat

Because Char views her as similar to Lalah? He does, but his attitude and actions make it obvious he sees her as a soldier first and foremost as a soldier, not in any kind of emotional, romantic or sexual light. Not that the fact she's nearly half Char or her's age shouldn't make it obvious he has none of that in the first place, memes aside.

>>15079022
>my definition only retermed it because you asked for it
Well,of course, explain and excuse have different definitions.But from a purely practical perspective how would you go about trying to excuse someone's actions? By trying to explain them, I think.

>top brass
I don't think she had any political power. As for using children in the Newtype Lab, well, it's definitely questionable but it's her job and it probably doesn't look that bad when you are all caught up in it. She definitely doesn't look like a "callous" woman. Quite the opposite of that. She is just one of those I-was-just-following-orders people. Like, in fact, most people.

>but his attitude and actions make it obvious he sees her as a soldier first and foremost as a soldier, not in any kind of emotional, romantic or sexual light
This seems to be a pretty popular opinion. Well, let's say that this is not what I got out of the situation. Nanai seems to agree. I guess it's one of those subjective things.

>>15079150

> how would you go about trying to excuse someone's actions?

By forgiving and/or forgetting them. When addressing a purely fictional set of events though, that doesn't apply since you can't do either - so holding the character's more responsible for their actions is about all you can do.

> I don't think she has any political power

She's Char's aide and one of his closest and most senior allies. She might not have any direct political power, but she can exercise power through him. She also has direct power as the head of newtype research.

> She is just one of those I-was-just-following-orders people.

Which isn't actually an excuse, and someone using that reasoning can be held accountable for their actions.

> I guess it's one of those subjective things

I guess it must be. I can understand saying you think Char saw her as a newtype guide or teacher, since she was much more naturally gifted than him, but I honestly cannot fathom how someone could come out of the film saying he had an emotional connection with her or viewed her in a romantic or sexual light. Even if you saw something in his actions he outright says in the finale he finds her annoying and was just using her.

>>15079183
>by forgiving and forgetting them
You have to go deeper.
>but she can exercise power through him
Because Char is well known for listening to other people.
>which isn't actually an excuse
I didn't say it's an excuse. My initial protest was against using adjectives as "callous" or "malicious" to describe Char and Nanai when they are not. Well, maybe Char is a little bit callous. But none of them is malicious. In fact none of the characters in the movie is in any way malicious.

>honestly cannot fathom how someone could come out of the film saying he viewed her in a romantic or sexual light
Honestly I cannot fathom how people could come out of watching something directed by Tomino without detecting even one bit of the sexual subtext so they have to come up with weird bullshit like :
>Char saw her as a Newtype guide or teacher
or
> his attitude and actions make it obvious he sees her as a soldier first and foremost as a soldier
to explain the emotionally volatile behavior of his characters.

>he outright says in the finale he finds her annoying
He did say that.
>and was just using her.
He did not say that.
In fact the proposition that he probably didn't treat Quess so well seemed to be quite revelatory to him.

>>15079255

Oh, you're the guy who thinks every relationship in any Tomino show revolves around sex. I see that extends to even more relationships than I thought. Never mind.

>>15079271
Well, not strictly about sex as in the physical act. More about intimacy in general. His strength is writing relationships. In his quest to understand what makes people tick he came to the physical level - their natural instincts.

>>15079291

You think there's sexual subtext at the heart of every relationship in Tomino and that nothing else can be the fundamental cause of a relationship. Which is a pretty ridiculous proposition. Especially in a franchise where understanding forms the fundamentals of several relationships, like Amuro and Lalah. Relationships that might have a sexual element, but which are pretty clearly not built on it given they barely meet but connect emotionally and not physically.

>>15079298
I just said it was about intimacy, not just sex though understandably it is also a part of the deal quite often. But the need for closeness with another human being is also a physical need. There is really no distinction between body and mind.

>>15079309

So you think Char wanted physical or emotional closeness with someone he found annoying and only paid attention to ad required to make her an effective pilot and pawn?

>>15079332
>So you think Char wanted physical or emotional closeness with someone he found annoying
Yes?
>and only paid attention to ad required to make her an effective pilot and pawn?
I don't completely understand the sentence but you seem to imply that always dragging someone around with you, personally attending to everything related to them, courting them,
patiently listening to their childish rants and showing active interest in them and enduring their silly hijinks does not warrant more than perfunctory interest?

>>15079362
Yes. Lying is part of manipulation. You act like there is no such thing as a faked relationship where one party only acts as far as they needs to in order to get what they want, and then dump the other party.

In some parts of the world, people engage in courtship to gain money or to get in a sham marriage that enables them to go to other countries. E.g., they have no other practical way to get out of their home country or are unwilling to work harder to go through normal immigration channels that can also take longer, so they woo a visiting tourist, get hitched as soon as possible without arousing suspicion, then once the immigration via marriage-relationship is done (married couples and families often get preferential processing in most nations' immigration departments) the person who initiated the sham relationship will cut off contact and leave, staying in the new country they just immigrated to.

>>15079599
You implied he paid to her only the minimal required attention and I was protesting to that.
Of course I to anything I say you reply "He was merely pretending" we are never going to get anywhere.
Why in the first place do you think he would go through the pains of intentionally manipulating a little girl? The success of the operation depended on whether or not he had a spastic Newtype wench in his army? Megalomania?
Something else? Explain in as much detail as you can.

>>15079362

That's romanticizing those events quite a bit. Does that mean that Char wanted Gyunei too? Or are we just letting the fact Gyunei was present in a good chunk of those scenes slide?

Putting that aside though Char is only alone with her three times, two of which are because she forced the issue by seeking him out and getting him alone, and the third of which is because she'd just defected to join him and there were no other characters of consequence around. Almost every conversation he has with her revolves around one thing too: piloting. Even when he's in a limo with her (and Gyunei) on the way back from a public appearance he gave (which Gyunei was also at) he just talks to her about piloting. The body language is also pretty telling in these scenes. He's generally standing tall and not moving much, with no moves to move, or even look much at her, while she's moving around a lot, and generally tries to look and move in his direction a lot.

Most of the scenes where he's observing her it's surrounded by other people, like Nanai, and observing, and commenting on, her piloting skill. He doesn't even talk about other things relating to her in those scenes. The two times she forces them to be alone his tone and even his words come across more as a patient guardian than any kind of lover. His manipulation of her is pretty obvious and self aware in the second one too, when she finds him in the control room of a ship and starts giving out about Nanai before he takes her aside in to another room because he promises he'll forget about Lalah and Nanai if she pilots the Alpha Azieru for him after she says she's willing to die for him.

So if you want an explanation as to why he was intentionally manipulating a little girl then you need look no further than that, the reason he himself practically spells out. Also, he's not suprised in the climax to learn he's treated her badly, he's pretty obviously surprised to learn she was looking for a father figure.

File: quesjagddoga7.jpg (35KB, 480x550px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x550px

>>15077344
Izubuchi is the best designer for zeon imo senpai

File: Â-Gundam_275.jpg (63KB, 346x512px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 346x512px

>>15078776
Thats why Beltochika was always superior

>>15081538
>the reason he himself practically spells out
Which is?

>>15082651

I already said it in that post, but since you apparently have trouble reading then it's because he wanted her to pilot the Alpha Azieru. Hence why he had her paired up with Gyunei, why he had her piloting skills checked, why he talks so much about piloting and how it's going with her.

>>15082710
Yes,and I asked you if her piloting the Alpha Azieru was of so integral importance to his plan that he'd put himself through the self-admitted torture of interacting with a bratty teenager.

File: Nanai.jpg (79KB, 400x800px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 400x800px

>>15082451
>Beltorchika
>being better in CCA
Come on, the only time she was better than someone was Zeta, when we had worse characters.

>>15082786

A single newtype is a strong machine has been one of the main contributing factors to every single war depicted in UC up to that point (and past it), so yes actually. It also means that with her almost certainly occupying the bulk of the Londo Bell forces he can engage Amuro without having to worry whether Axis is in danger. Why else do you think almost every conversation he has with or about her involves piloting? Why else do you think he promised to forget Lalah and Nanai when she said she'd die for him and then that she'd pilot the Alpha Azieru?

>>15082803
>Why else do you think almost every conversation he has with or about her involves piloting?
Almost every conversation he ever has with anyone involves either politics or military tactics. While I meant this mostly as a joke, when you think about it he really likes to talk about stuff like that.
>A single newtype is a strong machine has been one of the main contributing factors to every single war depicted in UC up to that point
I actually disagree with this statement and the philosophy behind it. The operation was planned out well before Quess came into the picture, she wasn't an integral part of it and she wasn't a trained soldier. While her participation would have definitely been more useful than detrimental and Char inarguably saw it this way it's far from indispensable. It's not something that should warrant his personal involvement to such an extent unless he also had further agenda.
Do you think that is what he was thinking about when he first met her
>Here is a girl I can use for my nefarious schemes

>Why else do you think he promised to forget Lalah and Nanai when she said she'd die for him
For a lot of reasons. In the first place and most importantly no make her shut up and stop bothering him.

>>15083058

> Almost every conversation he ever has with anyone involves either politics or military tactics.

One might almost conclude he doesn't connect to people on a personal level much and is more concerned with the people in a social sense. About the only conversation he has with Quess that he doesn't steer toward piloting is immediately after she joins him, and that's asking why she did. At least with Nanai he talked about Lalah and Amuro once, he didn't even do that with Quess.

> It's not something that should warrant his personal involvement

Helping train the strongest newtype in his force and making her a good pilot in a short amount of time to help with the success of his plan, both with Axis and Amuro sounds exactly like something he should be doing really. He doesn't have to, and he could foist it off, but there's certainly incentive there if he wanted to. Especially if he wanted to ensure her loyalty by fostering her devotion to him as he almost certainly does on several occasions. Amuro even says that Char is doing exactly that to Hathaway at one point.

> Do you think that is what he was thinking about when he first met her

Basically, yes. Before that he was almost certainly planning on putting Gyunei in the Alpha Azieru. Which is why Gyunei was around Char quite a bit too more than likely. Quess was a stronger newtype than Gyunei though, and a more natural pilot - as stated several times mid movie when she's first piloting for Neo Zeon and running rings round the challenges they put her too. As soon as he came across her he probably modified that plan and made Gyunei her partner and guard instead of the Alpha's pilot.

> In the first place and most importantly no make her shut up and stop bothering him

If he wanted her to stop bothering him then he probably didn't care much for her in the first place. Not that I think that's remotely the reason, but your reason doesn't reflect him having an emotional desire for her either.

>>15083165
>>15083165
>One might almost conclude he doesn't connect to people on a personal level much and is more concerned with people in a social sense.
One might almost conclude he is not a particularly emotionally expressive guy.

>about the only conversation
>he talked to her once
Yes, because it's safe to assume a movie with a very dry informative tone, that skips from one scene to another often without context or transition, provides you only with the bare minimum of exposition you need to piece the story together and hardly has any focus on the characters' inner life is a faithful one-to-one representation of those characters' daily routine?

> Amuro even says that Char is doing exactly that to Hathaway at one point.
Of course, you can depend on Amuro to have an objective opinion about Char.

>Basically, yes.
Ah, I see. You randomly meet your long time raibaru who tried to steal your dead girlfriend and he is like "I hate you! I hate you!" and he starts verbally and physically abusing you and you think to yourself "She didn't want me because of you" and you are like "That's so not fair!" and he is like "You are so fucking dead!" and tries to kill you but then suddenly some strange girl shows up out of nowhere to save you
and you turn around...
and you grab her hand...
and you think
"Well, I wonder if she can pilot."

>but your reason doesn't reflect him having an emotional desire for her either.
It's hard to maintain the illusion that you have a romantic interest in someone when everything they say and do reminds you that they are probably the most absurd match for you ever. One might almost call it...annoying.

File: Char's Machinations.webm (2MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1040px

>>15083449

> One might almost conclude he is not a particularly emotionally expressive guy.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

> it's (not) safe to assume a movie [...] is a faithful one-to-one representation of those character's daily routine

A discussion that differs from the norm the movie establishes wouldn't be daily routine. If the movie didn't include it, it's probably because it wasn't considered important or relevant. And if the movie establishes that Char really only talks to Quess about piloting and doesn't think it's important to establish otherwise, then it isn't. Saying he did but it just wasn't included because it's routine is verging toward head-canon.

> Of course, you can depend on Amuro to have an objective opinion about Char

More than anyone else in the franchise bar perhaps Lalah you can actually. He was one of the few people to guess what Char was planning before Char's Counterattack for instance. But hey, why don't we let Char himself say what he did with Quess.

> Amuro: Is that it? Is that why you used Quess like some kind of machine?
> Char: So, Quess was searching for a father figure?
> Char: I see why I found her so annoying and turned her into a machine.

So not only does he not disagree with Amuro's assessment that he turned her into a machine, he reiterates it himself, on top of saying she's annoying. Wow, he must really have had feelings for her to do that. I think at this point we should also consider his reaction to her death. Or rather, that he didn't have one. At all. He either didn't care or didn't know she died, and the movie never included any scene of him reacting to it at all because his reaction wasn't considered relevant.

> Ah, I see. You randomly meet your long time raibaru...

Not that literal second, but when he had her on the ship with him if you want a rough timeframe.

File: Char's Promise to Quess.webm (3MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1040px

>>15084131

> One might almost call it annoying

One might almost conclude that if you find someone annoying and everything they say and do aggravates you that you don't actually have feelings for them.

But hey, maybe he really did love her. Let's look at some of his interactions with her. Like pic related. Wow, nothing creepy or manipulative about that scene at all. And I bet he's completely serious about his promise to forget about both Lalah and Nanai. Char would never lie after all.

File: Char's Conversation with Gyunei.webm (3MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1040px

>>15084141

Oh look, 30 seconds later he's telling Gyunei he doesn't care about Quess at all. He was probably just lying there though. He really meant it with Quess.

File: Char's Promise to Nanai.webm (617KB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

617KB, 1920x1040px

>>15084145

And what's this he's saying a few minutes later? Why he's promising Nanai anything she wants once the battle is over. Well, obviously he was lying to her too. And Gyunei. But not Quess - no, his really meant it with her and totally had feelings for her.

So, judging from the ITT analysis of Char's actions, what would he do if he would succeeded and EF would be defeated?
As I suppose, he would have to settle together the unsettable things. Like all the promises he gave to Nanai and Quess.
I think that he would have to play it like this: to keep a proper public image, he would have to marry Nanai (it doesn't mean that he loves her, he has an image to keep), but I can't figure what he would do with Quess. Would he throw her away? Would he adopt her (so she won't be so angry on him for not fulfilling his promise)? Did he even knew who is her daddy and what does he do?

>>15084186

My personal feeling is that he had no intention of sticking around in charge even if he won and managed to live through it. He'd leave because he doesn't want to be in charge (his comment that he feels like a clown for instance) and just find a new cause, a new battle where he can be someone he likes more than himself essentially. He'd leave Nanai, Quess, the whole lot behind, faking his death like at the end of Zeta if need be. Even during his speech about why he's doing what he's doing to the assembled masses he says that he wants to join his father as part of it.

>>15084196
>He'd leave because he doesn't want to be in charge (his comment that he feels like a clown for instance) and just find a new cause, a new battle where he can be someone he likes more than himself essentially. He'd leave Nanai, Quess, the whole lot behind, faking his death like at the end of Zeta if need be. Even during his speech about why he's doing what he's doing to the assembled masses he says that he wants to join his father as part of it.
I agree, he would probably leave his post and go for a sort of a self-exile. But I think that he won't leave without being sure that everything will go his way. And until then he would have to keep his image of a spacenoids' red knight clean.

>>15084220

His way was cleansing Earth and forcing people in to space and nothing more. He tells Amuro inside Axis that he has no great plans for a revolution if I recall, while his speech to the crowd earlier in the film includes that they'll need strength to rule when he's gone or something to that effect. Pushing people off Earth was as far as he wanted to go from what I can tell, so no period of deception would be necessary.

>>15084186
Kill Quess after the battle and make it look like Londo Bell shot her down.

>>15084234
>Pushing people off Earth was as far as he wanted to go from what I can tell, so no period of deception would be necessary.
It would be. Because a dirty spot on his reputation (which can be damaged by some "humanist's" views on the entire Axis drop) is a dirty spot on the entire movement and on the new administration which would be made out of his people. He has be perfect in the eyes of the public.

>>15084248

What dirty spot? Also, since when has he needed to be perfect in the eyes of the public? He wants to beat Amuro perfectly in two ways within the film, but for his own ego, not for public approval. I don't think he's ever cared what the public thought, beyond manipulating them to further his goals like using Neo Zeon in the the film. Also, his plan to drop Axis will make a huge proportion of the populace hate him (is this the dirty spot you meant?), a thing that won't go away for decades, which he seems okay with.

>>15084260
>what dirty spot
Imagine if your national leader is caught being unable to settle his family organization. "How can we let ourselves being ruled by a man who can't even choose between his lovers or keep his family in order?" would say the opposition. "How can we trust his organization and subordinates?"
For example, Sarcozi and Strauss-Kahn had problems because of their sexual desires.
Char already would have a dirty spot on his reputation because of the Drop victims, he doesn't need another.

>>15084260
And, if Char wouldn't care about public opinion, would he bother himself with speeches and arranging proper clothing and acting?

>>15084299

Why would the public learn of it (or care about it) if he "died" in the effort to drop Axis? Hard to dispute who he loves and lose control when you're not there.

>>15084304

He only cares about public perception enough to get the support he needs to enact his plan. He doesn't appear to care about it beyond that. He kept his backers happy by dressing like a clown and giving big speeches, but didn't seem to care about them himself. The train public appearance is likely to be the same.

>>15084313
But how can you be sure that his team wouldn't kill each other for the sake of taking the power and lead the spacenoids in the proper way?
And we're not talking about Char's investors from Anaheim, who would also try to achieve their goals.

>>15084323

He doesn't seem to care about how Spacenoids are lead though, just that everyone become Spacenoids. Hence his rejection of Amuro's speech about revolutionaries in Axis by saying he doesn't want to change the world.

>>15084368
And that's just a sort of a misconception, if I got the word right. The newtypisation of humanity would change the society and the world, and the major social changes never go peacefully, without any disorders and violence outbreaks. So, we may call it a revolution.
Yet Char claims that he's not a revolutionary.

>>15084434

Pretty much. His stance he doesn't want to change the world is kind of silly given his plan, but he rejects the idea of revolutionaries not liking how their new society turns out and how it's abused, which with a few other small things like his talk of joining his father once the plan is complete make it seem like he doesn't care about ruling the new Spacenoids or how it's done, just getting people off Earth.

>>15084448
Well, now I think that I have some serious questions for Tomino, if I would have to ask him (which would, probably, never happen, since no major anime creators have been visiting Russia for, like, eternity).

>>15084448
Well, I guess that the general idea is that he didn't want to remove the government just to replace it with another that's just as bad. Rather he believed that until the general population didn't change it's mindset about politics any government was bound to be corrupt.

>>15084556
So, another idealist rebel for the material universe.

>>15084556

I think he just didn't care about the government at all, and was solely concerned with the people and his father's cause.

>>15084563
I guess this is the general idea.

>>15084563

Gundam universe is hardly material though.

>>15084578
Goddamit, I'm so tired of this. Looks like the only relatively materialist rebel movement in anime is the Deloyer Liberation movement from Dougram. And mainly because one of the creator's mother was the member of the labor movement.

>>15084583
I know. I mean, that if the universe is material for those who live in it, shouldn't it have the materialists?

>>15084568
With the way he always rebels against any authority he comes off as a kind of anarchist but he could probably work in some sort of structured emvironment if he would calm the fuck down.Or not.

As for Axis if it went through it would obviously cause huge mayhem. Considering that he didn't really support any government I guess that was the plan.

>>15077344
>>>15084568
>With the way he always rebels against any authority he comes off as a kind of anarchist
No. Anarchists promote self-governing, not the chaos. At least the classic ones. While the governments did always portray them as the chaotic bandits with political agenda (such vision also had its basis in reality).

>>15084613
Well, I'm not saying that he wanted mayhem as an end. More like the old structures could only be destroyed trough mayhem.

>>15084622
This is a typical revolutionary attitude, common to all the revolutionaries of the past.

>>15084622

I don't think he was concerned about the structures of government at all, on any level. He really just wanted to force contolism and didn't care what people did after that I think.

>>15084643
I disagree. That would imply he didn't understand the political situation which is not true. If you think about it you will see it was always corruption he cared about most.

>>15084667

Understanding something doesn't automatically make you care about it. And I'd rather you just explain why you think he cared about corruption in CCA rather than just saying "no, think about it". He didn't give two shits about it in 0079, he did in Zeta and I can't think of any reason to believe he did in Char's Counterattack either.

>>15084684
He hayed the Zabis because he thought they were vain, shallow and greedy. He also hated the Federation. Same in Zeta.

Also in Zeta he qualified politicians as buffoons. Same in CCA.

Also in CCA he openly despised both the Federation and Neo Zeon. He went through the purchase of Axis with the perfect knowledge that it was a complete parody and he made fun of both EF delegates and his own allies during and after the conference.

Also he consistenty reproached Amuro for being a tool through all entries.

It seems like he just has problems with authority in general but his main line of reasoning is that it's because the general public doesn't give a damn about anything that the government is in such state.

>>15084773

He hated the Zabis for what they did to him and his family, not because of their politics, and while he mocks politicians in Char's Counterattack I dint recall any suggestion it's because he hates how corrupt they are, as opposed to because he hates how pointless they are and how silly he feels as one.

Nothing in either 0079 or Char's Counterattack really sticks out as him despising corruption. Even rebuking Amuro comes off as him hating that Amuro is working under people who just see him as a tool - not that he's working specifically for corrupt people.

I also don't recall him ever railing at the people for not caring about government.

>>15078776
>kills Astonaige
I forgot they just fucking straight up went and killed Astona-GG in one scene.

Character that was there through two anime series dies suddenly, I have no idea what Tomino was thinking.

>>15084810
Sigh. Why do you always make me do that, guys?
>He hated the Zabis for what they did to him and his family, not because of their politics
How does one exclude the other? Are you denying that he found them vain, shallow and greedy?
>as opposed to because he hates how pointless they are
This is just one version of corrupt. Do you really think the point of that whole part wasn't to show corruption?
> how silly he feels as one
And why does he feel silly?
>him hating that Amuro is working under people who just see him as a tool
People that see their subordinates as tools are pretty corrupt if you ask me.

>I also don't recall him ever railing at the people for not caring about government.
Whether he railed at them or not does not change the fact that it's what he believed.
The problem is often discussed in Zeta. He and Amuro argue about it in CCA in their first encounter. It's a pretty overarching theme.

>>15084810
Shouldn't the viewer be already filled with disgust to EF after the ZZ episodes showing its corruption?

>>15082801
>Do bunch of backbreaking job for you.
>Drive the fucking Nu with only a probe escort to you, while being pregnant.
>Kill several zeek ace pilot with a turret for you, while being pregnant.
>Not killing Astonage aka broest person on the whole ship.
>Actually survive the whole battle and giving birth of your baby, unlike a certain wannabe.
>And still risking her live for the whole fleet even after your death in that fuckery called Unicorn.
>Not best.

Yeah, stay cucked Nanai.

File: Nanai again.jpg (101KB, 1280x688px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x688px

>>15085464
>do a huge work on the new technology which allowes to save the cost and weight of newtype MSs
>create a cyber newtype without any mental disorders while maintaining a normal level of newtype capabilities
>coordinating everything while Captain is absent
>surviving the battle and also giving birth to a child
>tolerating with Captain's insomnia and obsession with a research object from the past
>not being better than Beltorchika
Almost everything Nanai did was requireing either the purity of feelings or quality of education. And she did everything greatly.

>>15085549
>Best
>While being a ragged spacenigger with colony dropping fetish and literal neo-space hitler cocksleeve.

Yeah, she's 100% purely nuts alright

>>15084131
>>15084141
>>15084145
>>15084152
Dude...

In the first place I never said he loved her. I said he had romantic interest in her which is a completely different thing. Nor did I ever say it was not supposed to be creepy.

I don't know which part is hard to understand.
Quess protects Char from Amuro in a scene that invokes Lalah's death scene. Under the influence of that first impression Char picks her up. Later he is excited to discover her Newtype potential and he comments that she is "just like her". He projects his feelings for Lalah on her. He tries to court her and expects her to respond like a woman but she constantly forces him to treat her like a child. This annoys him but he doesn't want to analyze this feeling any deeper because it would break his illusion. Trying to hold on to it, he ignores his frustration and lies to Quess that he doesn't care about Lalah or Nanai while unconsciously wanting to push her away. On a rational level he realizes that the whole thing is stupid and pointless and wants to deny his weakness and emotional vulnerability so he lies to Nanai and Gyunei that he doesn't care about Quess. I see no contradiciton.
Just because Amuro is a paranoid neurotic that always expects the worst thing to happen it doesn't mean he understands why it's happening. He tells Hathaway "Char destroys everything in his way. He is just taking advantage of her naivity."
Later Amuro says "You just pretended to act like her father so you could use her abilities."
To which Char responds "She wanted just that? I didn't realize it because I wanted to force her to fit my expectations. Now I understand why it felt so wrong. My bad."

See? That's probably the simplest part of the movie.

>>15084234
>so no period of deception would be necessary.
It's hard to cheat a newtype.
In "Beyond the Time" manga Nanai always keeps a cell of a psycoframe prototype with her, so it would be even harder.

File: 44891.jpg (30KB, 200x275px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 200x275px

I just watched CCA and holy shit why the fuck did they kill off Astonaige like that?
He was one of my favorite characters from Zeta, why the fuck did they kill him off so unceremoniously like that and don't givr me that this is what war is like bullshit.

>>15086379
It was an act of god (Tomino)

>>15086608
Fuck him, there was literally no reason for his death.

>>15086618
People die get over it faggot

>>15086622
But the way he died was fucking stupid, people randomly dying for no reason at all is akame ga kill tier writing.

>>15077344
I wish I had waited longer to see it, it's the kind of film that should be watched at the end off the series, and the more you see before watching the better it gets

>>15084196
>he says that he wants to join his father as part of it
Why would he publicly announce that he plans to commit sudoku?

>>15084588

Gundam universe is more of a fever dream though, so in-universe materialists should be a miserable bunch of people.

>>15086750
I don't think that Melanie Hue Carbine is an idealist

File: Char hates Earthnoids.jpg (208KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1366x768px

>>15084894

> How does one exclude the other?

Conversely I want to know how one includes the other. Hating someone usually means hating them for one specific thing, not hating everything about them.

> Are you denying that he foudn them vain, shallow and greedy.

No, but I am saying those things aren't the same as being corrupt or that find them so and hating them aren't the same as hating them because of those reasons.

> Do you really think the point of that whole part wasn't to show corruption?

You mean the part where it's mentioned that they're selling Axis because they need the money for their welfare program and as soon as the sale is done the gold is scanned and someone leaves with it to fund said programs - they don't even wait till the meeting is over? That part is supposed to show corruption? If that's Tomino's intention then he did a terrible job.

> why does he feel silly?

Probably because he's aware he's dressing up for something he doesn't personally like.

> People that see their subordinates as tools are pretty corrupt if you ask me.

You need to look up the definition in that case. It might be callous, but it's not corrupt, because corruption is willingness to use unfair means to gain something not willingness to use your subordinates.

> He and Amuro argue about it in CCA in their first encounter.

That's a very liberal interpretation of that line. All he says is that Earthnoids are selfish, not anything about their belief in politics.

> It's a pretty overarching theme.

I've yet to see any evidence he cared about it outside Zeta honestly.

>>15085276

Char isn't the viewer, or a viewer stand in.

File: Char's Sweetwater Speech.webm (2MB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1040px

>>15089676

That said, I re-watched Char's Sweetwater speech, and where I thought he said he just wanted people to rule in his stead and join his father after the drop he seems more to be implying he wants their help to forge a government and then join his father. So his rejection of Amuro's revolutionaries speech in Axis is even more weird, and I still don't buy that he cared about corruption outside Zeta, but it does seem like perhaps he wanted to establish some kind of government for it's own end before he disappeared and not just do so straight away.

>Hating someone usually means hating them for one specific thing, not hating everything about them.
That sounds pretty arbitrary. But if you admit that it is theoretically possible to hate everything about someone then it should also be possible to hate two or three or more things about them.
>Conversely I want to know how one includes the other.
If one thing does not exclude the other that doesn't necessarily mean it includes it.
But all of this is beside the point. See:
For example if a honest citizen accidentally ran over your child because he was playing in the street you'd be pretty mad at them but if you accessed realistically the situation you would realize it's pointless to hate them. But if they were some sort of drunken douchebag that wasn't watching were he drives you'd hate them, no?
>those things aren't the same as being corrupt
Killing people for power, for money or for glory is not "unfair"?
>That part is supposed to show corruption?
Poor little EF officials, they care so much about the people that they would sell even their last giant rock for evil Nazi gold to a shady suspicious guy who totally has no history of violent behavior and would never use it for mass destruction. God bless their souls.
>he's aware he's dressing up for something he doesn't personally like.
And why doesn't he like it?
>all he says is that Earthnoids are selfish
And why does it matter if Earthnoids are selfish?
>I've yet to see any evidence he cared about it outside Zeta honestly.
The overarching theme I was talking about is that the government won't change for the better because people are don't care. It's discussed in Zeta.
Of course, corruption is also an overarching theme that is closely related to this one and I already gave you evidence that he cared about it from the start. On the other hand how would you logically explain that he cared about it in Zeta but not in MSG or CCA.inb4 the he-was-merely-pretending defense

>>15089687
>So his rejection of Amuro's revolutionaries speech in Axis is even more weird
You know, I think you should just ease up and stop taking everything literally. In any case Gundam doesn't seem to be the kind of show for you. Go watch LOGH or something.

>>15089980
Why would I? I want something to talk about, and there's not much to discuss about LoGH. Everything is explained and looks pretty straight and flawless at the first sight.

>>15089971

> if you admit that it is theoretically possible to hate everything about someone then it should be possible to hate two or three or more things about them

Of course it is, but Char is always shown to hate the Zabis primarily because of what happened to his family, not because of their behavior.

> you'd hate them, no?

Of course, I hate them for killing my kid though - not for their drinking habits.

> Killing people for power, money or glory is not "unfair"

Not really no. It can be, depending on circumstance, but it can be fair too.

> Poor little EF officials.

Basically yes. It might be a bad idea, but it's not corrupt.

> why doesn't he like it?

We're never told.

> why does it matter if Eartnoids are selfish?

Again, he doesn't actually say. Corruption is just you reaching for an answer the film never provides though.

> how would you logically explain that he cared about it in Zeta but not in MSG or CCA

Because they're different works made in different times with no real eye toward continuity except retroactively. As much as you might dislike the idea he was only pretending, it's probably the most straight forward given the production history.

>>15090034
>Of course it is, but Char is always shown to hate the Zabis primarily because of what happened to his family, not because of their behavior.
Where?
>Of course, I hate them for killing my kid though - not for their drinking habits.
And if I were Char I'd hate the Zabis for killing people because of their greed, not because I disliked their personality.
> but it's not corrupt.
Of course, that's why the conference was kept in secret.
>We're never told.
>Again, he doesn't actually say.
Of course, those parts are just randomly added for no reason even though they were discussed in Zeta.
>no real eye toward continuity except retroactively.
I don't see why this has to prevent consistent characterization.

>>15090034
>depending on circumstance, it can be fair too.
I'd like to hear an example of how killing innocents to acquire power, money or glory for yourself can be fair.

>>15086635

And Tomino was doing it decades before Akame Go Kill. He changed perspectives on it, at least as a story telling device later in his career and since the mid 90s hasn't really included much, if any of it, even if he's only made 4 shows in the two decades since. He even gave a new spin on Zeta using that different perspective. Char's Counterattack just fell before that period ended, though Victory was the peak for it.

Even he seems to regret it nowadays, at least in general and speaking purely to the use of it, not Astoniage specifically.

>>15093750
Another idea of perfect ending: As the escape pod gets hotter, Char wakes up at home. It's just sun was too hot. And in fact he fell asleep building his gunpla

File: Gundam-Build-Fighters-Episode-23-0451-Char-Aznable-Lalah-Suneh.png (561KB, 854x479px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 854x479px

>>15094525
>Gundam characters that die go to the build fighters universe.
It all makes sense now.

>>15093750
Well good, because the character deaths were really meaningless.
I am fine with characters not dying in a blaze of glory like some of the other anime series, but just dying in a freak accident to show that people can die at any moment without any regard, but what he did didn't even feel like it was for some chep shock value, it honestly felt like he was just killing characters off for the sake of killing them off.
It's as if he wanted to just fucking murder somebody, but he just did the next best thing since murdering someone is illegal.
I was about to start with watching Victory, but I might skip it if the tomino deaths are at their peak there.

File: quote-by-directing-combat-and-war-pieces-i-could-experience-catharsis-and-successfully-avoid-yoshiyuki-tomino-79-43-94.jpg (69KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 850x400px

>>15094616

>>15094644
>he actually killed off his characters to satisfy his homicidal tendencies.
Well put me in a dress and call me sally, I was actually right on the money.
I am fucking dying right now.

>>15094650
--Having said that, the logic of the villains in your works seem to stand out more than that of the main character.
Tomino: I think there are two reasons for that one. One is due to the reason I stated before. In trying to keep the wording clean while depicting evil, I had to think through the logic for the evil side. From there I realized that the logic for evil doesn't exist, but that evil is the failure to accomplish what was intended as good.
The other reason is not due to dramatization, but because there are elements within myself that are closer to the side of the villain than to the main character. For example, I often think that to reduce the needlessly increased volume of humanity, we should rid the world of a hundred million people. But there's a definite gap between thinking it and actually killing off people. The difference that fills this gap is rage. Rage can kill people. Rage makes on think that you can take over a country. When there's an incident, the general reaction is, "I can't believe that gentle person would do something like that."
That reaction is false. Instead, you should think, "When a gentle person becomes enraged, that person is bound to step over the edge." The majority of what is called evil is actually something like that.
--Hearing that, it becomes easier to understand the raison d'etre of the opposition's side in a Tomino work.
Tomino: However, making a movie with just the logic of "evil" is too cold. So long as it's a major motion picture, it has to be kind to people's sensibilities. That's precisely why you need the side of the main character.
--That means that, while the existence of the "evil" side is logically structured, the main character's side, conversely, it fitted into the work more in line with the requirements of the story, right? That doesn't mean that the main character is there to refute the logic of evil.
Tomino: That's right. After all, I don't want my logic to be refuted. (laughs)

>>15094616

There's not really anything like Astoniage in Victory. There's a lot of death, but most of it is during combat, rather than random chance, and a lot of it is predictable just because a character starts getting backstory or relevance.

I think Victory is worth it despite that for the choreography, the atmosphere and the characters (Uso, Marbet, some of the Shrikes, I even like Chronicle personally), but the cast attrition is a deal breaker for some. One of my favourite things about Victory though is the show's atmosphere. It nails the desperation of war better than any other Gundam, so when the League Militaire are running around in a few field trucks, launching suits from the back of 'em in the first 10 odd episodes, you realise just how short on allies and resources they are to say it's mostly old men and kids in beaten equipment bar a few Victory Gundams.

>>15090090

> Where?

Garma's death for a start. He specifically says Garma can blame his father for what's happening.

> if I were Char

You're not, and viewing his actions based on how you'd act isn't the best start to understanding a character.

> that's why the conference was kept in secret

I don't recall it being mentioned that the conference was secret. Char showing up was not what most (maybe any) of them expected, but they were there to conduct peace talks, with public disarmament to follow. Doesn't seem like something that'd be a big secret to me. Quess' father also mentions Char threatened to destroy some colonies to Bright by the way, another reason they felt forced to make the deal.

> those parts are just randomly added for no reason.

Well let's see. Char responds about how selfish Earthnoids are as a direct response to Amuro commenting about how devastating the drop of Fifth Luna would be, so it's not hard to see that line as Char trying to justify his actions. As to why he dislikes dressing as a politician, probably because it's not something he's used to and he's always preferred being a pilot, so dressing up feels weird to him.

> I don't see why this has to prevent consistent characterization

It doesn't, nor did I say it did. It makes it harder, since you're doing it on the fly and can only build on what you've already done, not start blank, but it's not impossible. I only said that much as you might dislike the idea Char was pretending in Zeta, it's probably the most best way to explain his actions.

>>15091897

Oh good, now the word "innocent" is being added. Leaving out that morally leading angle though, killing people for money, position etc. is basically a soldier's job. Not all of them doing it for those reasons, but it's still there.

>>15086115

Then replace the word love with romance. The basic argument is the same regardless. Also, I fail to see how Quess protecting Char invokes Lalah's death beyond having some of the same actors. Lalah dies while pushing Char out the way in one, Quess lives while putting Amuro under his own gun in the other. Not much similarity. Nor does he ever try to talk to her only to get annoyed because she keeps forcing him to treat her like a child. The closest to it is the first conversation they have about why she helped him, during which she actually speaks more like an adult than most of her dialogue by musing on why she did and why she finds certain kinds of people sad, but the lines she does have that are childish Char doesn't react to at all. He spends nearly the whole thing looking out a window and barely looks at her.

I also find it suspicious that you've ad-libbed the entire conversation between Amuro and Char about Quess, to insert lines that aren't present in the original dialogue. Nowhere, in any version I've ever seen, does Amuro say Char acted like a father, or does Char say he did so because he didn't realize he was doing so because he wanted to force her to fit a role. Or anything approaching "my bad" for that matter. He doesn't seem the least bit repentant about it at all, and his lines indicate only that he found her annoying and "made her in to a machine" i.e. he used her. That is a simple part of the movie, but it's a lot simpler again if you don't just make up your own version and force the movie to fit it.

>>15086192

Can't be too hard if Char could lie to Nanai about his feelings throughout the movie and have her keep believing in him.

>>15098896
>>15098926
It seems you have a hard time understanding when an emotion is being expressed unless it's verbally stated. Are you aware you have this problem? Has anyone you know ever mentioned something along these lines?

>>15099629

> the emotion I want to be there is there, it's just not conveyed in words or action

>>15099648
90% of a conversation is tone of voice and body language.

>>15099665

Yes, and I'm saying nothing in that 90% conveyed any of what that anon is saying. Or do you not realise that body language is an action and tone a part of words in an audio visual medium?

File: cca0005.jpg (43KB, 620x335px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x335px

>>15099675
OK. Let's start with pic related. It should be easy because they emote a lot in it.

>Nowhere, in any version I've ever seen, does Amuro say Char acted like a father
Honestly, I'm not sure either what exactly Amuro was trying to say, but whatever he was thinking Char was trying to do, he definitely seemed to believe it was deliberate and with malicious intent. Also it seems to be in line with his other statements about Char.
He is saying:
>I couldn't be a father to Quess.(moment of realization)Is that why?Why you used her as a machine?
The most simple interpretation seems to me to be:
>You knew she was emotionally susceptible so you used that to manipulate her.
though it could have other possible meanings.
Another possible interpretation could be:
>You knew I'd feel bad for not being able to help her so you tried to ingratiate yourself to her and make her hate me just to spite me.
though it's kind of far-fetched probably?Or it could be something else?
Maybe you can understand better? To be honest it's harder for me to get in Amuro's head.

In any case let's go back to the question in hand. What do you think is the purpose of the whole scene? Just to affirm that Char was indeed just using her? What was the purpose of Char's statement? Was it simply declarative?What would he achieve by declaring something like that? Was he gloating, trying to irritate Amuro ? Something else? How did he expect Amuro to react to his statement according to you? Cry?
I'd like to hear your version. Feel free to ad-lib as much as you want as long as it doesn't trigger your autism too much.

>>15100145

> I'm not sure what exactly Amuro was trying to say

The simplest explanation is probably that Amuro realized that her affection was symptomatic of wanting a stronger father figure and decided he didn't want to fulfill that role, while he's accusing Char of seeing her affection for what it appears to be, love, and using her because she was essentially throwing herself at him.

> What do you think is the purpose of the whole scene?

Why do it need to have a hidden, deeper meaning? Not every scene is something that will have 20 layers of meaning you have to think about for years and make associations and extrapolations to really get. Why is it not possible that scene is there to show, at the climax, the difference between Amuro and Char. That Amuro saw Quess's affection for what it was and decided he couldn't, or wouldn't be the person she wanted, while Char failed to realize what was actually going on and just used her because she was an easy mark who'd do anything he said or wanted for his approval. Amuro wasn't willing to use someone, Char was.

> How did he expect Amuro to react to his statement

What does that matter? It's not like he was responding just to get a rise out of Amuro

>>15101185
>he's accusing Char of seeing her affection for what it appears to be, love, and using her because she was essentially throwing herself at him.
So he is saying:
>You just didn't notice how she feels because you don't give a shit about anyone.
Makes sense.
Help me out in the rest. In Axis he is saying:
>The intelligentsia feel that they are justified for their extremism because they fight for some sort of ideal.
I don't disagree with him, but the revolutionary sort of logic, while misguided is easy to sympathize with. Yet Amuro never misses an occasion to call Char "selfish", "pathetic", "narrow-minded" or what not other epithets. So he doesn't find Char's goals sympathetic.
>It's just like Char to think that change can only come through violence.
i.e
>He just wants to achieve his goals in the easiest way and doesn't give a shit about anyone.
So what did he think Char's "ideals" were that were "selfish" and "narrow-minded". Some sort of arrogant Spacenoid supremacy?

Also when he says about Quess:
>He is just taking advantage of her sensitivity to use her as a tool. She is going to die.
I assume those are his feelings about Char and Lalah's relationship?

Basically Amuro thinks that Char is some sort of megalomaniac?

>>15101185
>Why do it need to have a hidden, deeper meaning?
Who is talking about "hidden" and "deeper". If a scene was inserted in a movie it must mean something, no?

Here is the scene:
1.Char is anxiously bent forward, holding head with both hands; speaking is quick and erratic, raving; disturbed facial expression.
Amuro speaks to him in a firm didactic tone.
2.Char leans back, one hand still in hair to show concentrated, deliberate thought; tone is sharp and harsh; facial expression changes from bitter to bold.
Amuro also responds sharply and adds something in an angry accusing voice.
3.Still leaning back, Char closes his eyes, facial expression is peaceful; hand moves from head to chest suggesting an emotional reaction; speaking is slower, hesitating; his tone is notably softer and breathier but still emphatic.
Amuro replies in an angry, hateful tone.
4.Char responds with a gut-punch reaction - jumping forward and looking in pain that changes into fury as he starts shouting at Amuro.

>What does that matter? It's not like he was responding just to get a rise out of Amuro
Usually when people speak to other people it's to invoke some sort of reaction. How do you know why he was responding? Why wouldn't it matter? It doesn't matter why people do things? If Char didn't expect Amuro to have any particular feelings about the situation why did he react so violently to his dismissive remark?

Going just by audio-visual information:
Char is in an unstable state of mind behaving restlessly and irrationally. Amuro tries to call for reason, which annoys him, so he says something mean just to spite him. Amuro is appropriately irritated and disappointed so he rants bitterly at Char. Char agrees and accepts his words with humility responding affirmatively in an attempt to reconcile. Amuro is not willing to and verbally abuses him. Char's feelings are hurt by this rejection and he gets angry again.

What part of this interpretation do you disagree with?

>>15077344
Novel was better

>>15103470
Which one? In whay way?

File: 1478263022057.jpg (168KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 650x650px

best couple

>>15102057

> So what did he think Char's "ideals" were

Presumably he thought Char's ideals were Contolism and a belief in newtype evolution even if he wasn't a supremacist about it.

> I assume those are his feeling about Char and Lalah's relationship?

His feelings are probably founded in that relationship, even if he's able to recognize that Char treats Quess differently yea.

> Amuro thinks that Char is some sort of megalomaniac?

I don't think he does, more of a sociopath/psycopath in that he doesn't really empathize or socialize well with other people, and isn't adverse to using them for his own ends.

>>15102296

> If a scene was inserted in a movie it must mean something, no?

Yes, and I gave what I think is the meaning in >>15101185.

> Usually when people speak to other people it's to invoke some sort of reaction

A dialogue can't just consist of multiple parties trying to get a reaction out of each other or else it'd be a competition until one party explodes in rage or sadness. Some dialogues are like that, usually arguments though. People often speak to others to exchange information or simply to hear their own voice and not just to evoke a reaction.

That aside though, Char closes his eyes and speaks in a softer voice while using the words "I see", all of which suggest he's addressing himself, not Amuro. He's admitting something to himself, not to Amuro. He certainly wanted to get a rise out of Amuro with his accusation that Amuro was cold to Quess, but the next line doesn't seem to be aimed at Amuro at all.

As to why his hand is on his heart? Realizing you failed to notice something or made a mistake is often an emotional reaction on it's own, especially for more arrogant people.

> What part of this interpretation do you disagree with

Mostly I'd disagree that he was attempting to reconcile with Amuro. He accepted Amuro's words because he recognized that he had failed to realize something, not because he was trying to reconcile as far as I can see.

>>15106189
>he thought Char's ideals were Contolism and a belief in newtype evolution
For what reasons, that weren't deserving even of sympathy, did Char care for such things ?

>Realizing you failed to notice something or made a mistake is often an emotional reaction on it's especially for more arrogant people.
Why would an arrogant person feel relief after realizing they made a mistake?

>A dialogue can't just consist of multiple parties trying to get a reaction out of each other
In any certain situation people have a set of expectations of how this situation can develop. Why would he display such a painful reaction to being dissed at this point of the conversation?

Char's heart never seemed to be truly into dropping Axis and he seemed disappointed that Amuro wasn't able to prevent it conventionally.

>>15106340
What? When?

>>15106340
I got sort of the same impression: he wasn't nearly as emphatic about Axis dropping as he was when punching Amuro in the field, or even convincing him that Earth was corrupt. His statement about taking all the world's evil also seemed like it was supposed to be a central part of his character. I got the impression that he wasn't just spouting off ideology at the end, he really wanted to convince Amuro, and for both of them to stand side by side and watch Axis fall, because he didn't want to kill Earth all by himself.

>>15106294

> For what reasons, that weren't even deserving of sympathy, did Char care for such things?

Who says his reasons weren't deserving of sympathy? He seemed to care about both primarily because of his father. Just because Amuro was against his methods doesn't mean he didn't see some good in them. He was in favor of Contolism going by Zeta.

> Why would an arrogant person feel relief after realizing they made a mistake?

I'd assume any time being right creates a problem and realizing they had it wrong is the same moment they realize the problem is no longer a problem. I don't see how that's really relevant though, since I don't think Char is relieved - only aware.

> In any situation people have a set of expectations of how this situation can develop

Not really, no. A lot of people plan for some situations, but take most stuff on the fly. Most people aren't going to go in to an argument like this one with a specific expectation on the outcome, since the argument itself is an unforseen circumstance of earlier events.

> Why would he display such a painful reaction to being dissed at this point of the conversation?

The Lalah comment? He made that comment specifically to hit back (verbally) at Amuro after Amuro accused him of being narrow-minded because he failed to recognize that Quess was just looking for a father figure. He even says that Amuro causing Lalah's death means that Amuro has no right to judge him. He just wanted to antagonize Amuro there going by what he says.

>>15077344
yeah; it's one of the only mecha cartoons I rewatch often.

That and Oishii when i'm feeling down.

>>15106407

On the other hand when all the Jegans are rushing in to help Amuro push back Axis he complains to himself that he thought his plan was flawless. He's not talking to Amuro, just to himself so there's no reason for him to lie.

File: hi_nu_lineart_by_riderman09-d9a51rc.png (185KB, 756x1011px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 756x1011px

>>15106340
I really think that CCA was really all about Char wanting everything to go back to Him vs Amuro. He is horribly out of place as leader of Neo-Zeon, and would rather be out in the front lines of the absolutely suicidal battlefield of Axis when it was in the gravity of Earth. He wanted to be the red comet again, not the son of Zeon.

Also, what does /m/ think is better, Hi-Nu vs Nightingale or Nu vs Sazabi, personally i love the designs of Hi-nu but can't stand the color scheme

>>15106340
What does "prevent it conventionally mean" and when was be disappointed by that?

>>15106407
beginning of movie:
>Then hurry up and change all of the stupid people!
middle of movie:
>Why wont you understand that humans are the vermin polluting the Earth?
end of movie:
>But those same people are the ones destroying the Earth!
Seems pretty consistent to me.
>wanting everything to go back to him vs Amuro
What do you even mean by that?

>>15107406
Axis would have fallen onto the Earth if it wasn't for the psychoframe resonance. I'd call that pretty unconventional.
As for Char's disappointment, it's all down to his tone of voice in those scenes. That grim resignation.

>>15106428
Sympathizing with someone's ideals is not the same thing as sympathizing with their motives.
If Amuro insisted on calling Char "selfish" and "pathetic" then maybe, just maybe, he didn't find his reasons very sympathetic.

>any time being right creates a problem
Why would being right create a problem?

>I don't think Char is relieved
>Still leaning back, eyes closed, peaceful facial expression. Hand moves to chest. Speaking is slower, hesitating.Tone is softer but emphatic.
What is this supposed to convey according to you?

>Not really, no. Most people take most stuff on the fly.
Prediction is a natural function of our brain even if you are unconscious of it. That's why we manage to, for example, go down the stairs without killing ourselves. If you were like "I wonder what's in the fridge?" and opened it and saw an elephant instead of milk and cheese you'd be, well, surprised. Why were Amuro's words an elephant and not milk and cheese or at least butter and eggs?

>he even says that Amuro causing Lalah's death means that Amuro has no right to judge him.
What does Lalah's death have to do with Char failing to recognize that Quess was just looking for a father figure?

>>15107418
>that grim resignation
Sounds like an appropriate reaction to seeing your hopes and dreams crushed. If the whole huggy miracle love power of humanity didn't convince him that the world was a nice place to live in how would have Amuro single-handedly saving the Earth like Superman accomplished that?

CCA is one of the worst UC productions I have ever seen.

>>15107506
Wow, careful with those arguments.

>>15107510
It was a statement.

>>15107515
It was sarcasm.

>>15107525
It was a retort.

>>15107549
It was a remark that I don't care about a conversation entirely based on third-grade witticisms.

>>15107482

> maybe, just maybe, he didn't find his reasons very sympathetic.

Okay. I still think he sympathized with his motives, but not his methods. Mostly I'm still unsure as to why whether Amuro sympathizes with Char's motives is important.

> Why would being right create a problem?

Can you honestly not imagine a scenario where someone being right about something results in an unforeseen problem that them being wrong about wouldn't create? Can you not imagine that being right doesn't mean you'll have no problems?

> What is this supposed to convey according to you?

Char realizing he's been wrong about something. Not relief, just realization. The clarity that realization brings.

> unconscious

Then it doesn't matter, because if it's an unconscious expectation then you're not leading the conversation toward it.

> What does Lalah's death have to do with Char failing to recognize that Quess was just looking for a father figure?

It doesn't need to. You seem to think the thought process has to be

> Char: I considered Quess similar to Lalah on an emotional level > Questioning my treatment of Quess is like questioning my treatment of Lalah > How dare you question my treatment of Lalah

That's one way it could happen, but not the only one possible

> Char: Amuro questioned my treatment of Quess > How do I hurt him/When has Amuro been narrow minded/How do I make myself feel better about my treatment of people? > I connected with Lalah and she might have been able to help me connect with others > How dare you judge me when you killed Lalah because you were too narrow minded to work with her (and me)

>>15107624
>Okay. I still think he sympathized with his motives, but not his methods.
Okay. Because I think it's weird to call someone selfish and pathetic when you sympathize with their motives.

>Can you honestly not imagine a scenario ?
Not in the current situation.

>Not relief, just realization.The clarity that realization brings.
Realization is not an emotion. Realization in the cognitive sense is a process of acquiring relevant information can bring on any emotion depending on the situation. Clarity as in the state of realizing something is also not an emotion.
You talk about clarity as a spiritual state? Do you know what this means? It means peacefullmess and acceptance. You mean "realization" as the resolution of an inner conflict. How would you describe the emotion of a resolution to an inner conflict? Not relief? What is Char's inner conflict that got resolved?

>You seem to think the thought process has to be
Let's forget for a while what I seem to think.

>How do I make myself feel better about my treatment of people?
So you admit Char felt bad about his treatment of people?

>because if it's an unconscious expectation then you're not leading the conversation toward it.
That is arguable. The point in question though is that you are bound to react sharply if your expectations are cruelly subverted. Char is not simply irritated. Being called "narrow-minded" by Amuro in this exact situation triggers a painful and violent reaction. This is the last thing he wanted to hear at this moment. Why is that?

>>15108055

> I think it's weird to call someone selfish and pathetic when you sympathize with their motives

I think it's weird that you don't think that's possible.

> Not in the current situation

I was only speaking in a general sense in the first place, since I didn't think Char was feeling relief.

> Realization is not an emotion

Nor is relief.

> Clarity means peacefulness and acceptance

In a spiritual sense it might (I don't know), but I wasn't speaking about a spiritual sense, only the actual definition. Which doesn't mean that, but instead means seeing clearly.

> How would you describe the emotion of a resolution to an inner conflict

I wouldn't describe Char as having an inner conflict in regards to that in the first place. Amuro pointing out something that Char had failed to see and Char recognizing the truth in his words and that he'd failed to realize something isn't an inner conflict, but doesn't need to be for him to recognize it.

> So you admit that Char felt bad about his treatment of people

Of people in general when Amuro has called him out on it and he wants to feel better about it yes. Of Quess in particular or because he had an emotional desire of some kind for Quess, no.

> The point in question is that you are bound to react sharply if your expectations are cruelly subverted

You're bound to react sharply to anything cruel. Adding the word cruel colors the idea beyond the original wording.

> Why is that?

It couldn't possibly be that Char doesn't like his oldest enemy and one of the few people he's known for a prolonged period denigrating him and insulting his character in any manner.

>>15108114
>>15108114
>I think it's weird that you don't think that's possible.
Well, while it's possible to use terms like these in objective way according to some scientific definition, they usually ,and in this particular case , have derogatory meaning that bears emotional content. Throughout all the movie Amuro expresses a very negative assessment about Char's moral character.
Regardless of the morality of their actions if you thought lowly of someone's moral character it would be hard to hold beliefs that those people's motivation could be morally aproved of.
i.e even if someone's actions were ethical if you though lowly of their ethical values you would question their motives. On the other hand if someone did something questionable as long as you held their moral character in high regard you'd be inclined to give them more credit.
If Amuro thought that Char has no ethical considerations whatsoever then it would cause him a cognitive dissonance to think that Char's actions were motivated by ethical considerations.
So if Amuro doesn't think Char's actions were motivated by that, what does he think they were motivated by?
...'s all I was asking.

>>15108114
>Nor is relief.
Well, we already agreed he was having an emotional reaction. So if realization and clarity are not emotions (and neither is relief) what emotion was he experiencing?

>of people in general
So much the better. I don't see what emotional "desire" has to do with feeling bad about hurting another human being.
>and he wants to feel better about it
Why would someone who doesn't care about other people care if other people care if he cares about other people?

I've just watched CCA and it is a bad telenovela compressed into a movie, but with mechas.

Nanai wants Char but he wants Lalah, but she is dead.
Gyunei wants Quess, Hathaway wants Quess too.
But Quess wants Amuro at first but then she wants Char even more.
Chen wants Amuro, and Amuro actually wants Char.

Psycoframe takes a Newtype bullshit to a new level (the bullshitness of Newtypes grows with every main UC Gundam I've watched so far). Especially this small T-shaped one that Quess had.

Politicians are retards as usual - "Char just hit the Earth with an asteroid powered by nuclear engines, let's give him even bigger asteroid with nuclear engines to stop war".

Char is a retard too - "Human pollute Earth, that's why I will hit it with some nukes and give it radioactive pollution".

The visuals are saving grace of the movie, not only the animation is good, and Izubuchi's designs above what we earlier saw in the series, but there is all this cool playing with a lack of gravity, strapping mechas everywhere on the ship, etc.

Final thought: Fucking Newtypes wanting to fuck each other. It's all their fault.

File: Ouch.gif (2MB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x362px

>>15078569
I think they are referring to what Gyunei said about Char's alleged interest in Quess

File: Wicked.jpg (61KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x480px

>>15077344
I think we can all agree that this was the strongest point of the movie

>>15108283

> Regardless of the morality of their actions if you thought lowly of someone's moral character it would be hard to hold beliefs that those people's motivation could be morally approved of

I disagree. There's a lot of horrible people I can think of socially or historically whose methods I don't approve of, but whose motives I do. I don't know any personally, so maybe it's different there on a gut level, but I can't speak to that due to lack of experience. Every time I see the word motive in these arguments I want to read it as method though, because that makes much more sense to me.

>>15108321

> what emotion was he experiencing?

Your right, emotion is probably the wrong word. A physical experience is probably a better phrase. He realized something, and suddenly several things made more sense than they had before with his previous assumptions - the clarity of this realization washing over him and giving him an "Oh" moment, a moment that gave him pause.

> I don't see what emotional "desire" has to do with feeling bad about hurting another human being

I only used the phrase "emotional desire" because the anon I was originally arguing with (who I assumed was still you) objected to the word love and frankly I don't know what label he wants to put on it at this point, so I tried to be as vague as possible. As is though, I don't even think Char felt bad about hurting Quess. I don't think he felt anything about it honestly.

>>15115405

> Why would someone who doesn't care about other people care if other people care if he cares about other people?

You appear to be conflating someone not caring about other people's well being, future, feelings etc. with caring about what someone's opinion of you is. Both use vaguely the same terms so it's not surprising, but for the record while I don't believe Char cared about the feelings or future of many people, I do believe he cared about how people perceived him. And that he got upset realizing that Amuro had a low opinion of him. Possibly since he seems to have a good opinion of Amuro on the whole. He might have even been able to square it away and be okay with it if he had time to sit down and think about it, but his gut reaction to Amuro's disgust was to be upset that Amuro thought less of him.

>>15115405
>every time I see the word motive I want to read it as method, because that makes more sense to me.
What did he mean be that?

>I only used the phrase "emotional desire" because you objected to the word love and frankly I don't know what label you want to put on it.
I used the term "romantic interest" if my memory serves me right.

>>15115409
So we are talking about someone who is self-absorbed, not someone who is ruthless?
I keep underestimating the extent to which subtle misunderstandings can lead to gross misconceptions.

>a physical experience is probably a better phrase
If in the end the entire cause of our disagreement comes down to the subjective interpretation of certain body states then our argument is pointless. I can't possibly logically explain to you emotions you are incapable of recognizing.

>>15117424

> What did he mean by that?

Not only do I not know what you're asking at this point, I still don't even get why you thought it was worth noting that Amuro may not have viewed Char, his motives or his methods as sympathetic.

> we are talking about someone who is self-absorbed, not someone who is ruthless

Someone who is both really.

> I can't possibly logically explain to you emotions you are incapable of recognizing

If you think not agreeing that a physical gesture can only be interpreted one way, that it logically has to mean X and that anyone who doesn't agree doesn't recognize emotion because that gesture couldn't possibly indicate anything else then yea, there's probably no point in arguing since you are far too rigid in your thinking to bother with.

>>15118179
>not only do I not know what you're asking at this point
It's a well know memetic phrase used to denote perplexity.

>if you think not agreeing that a physical gesture can only be interpreted one way
A single gesture can be interpreted in many ways. A pattern of behavior can be interpreted in one way. I don't think there is anything ambiguous in Tomino's approach to characterization.

>>15118282

> It's a well know memetic phrase used to denote perplexity.

In my experience it actually tends to be used to pretend confusion over something relatively straight forward. So again, I'm still lost as to both what you're confused over in what I'd think is a relatively straight forward sentiment and why you think the overall point has matters.

> A pattern of behavior can only be interpreted in one way.

And yet you've yet to actually present any such pattern.

> I don't think there is anything ambiguous in Tomino's approach to characterization

And yet people have been debating it for decades, so logically there is. That aside, I don't think his characterization is particularly difficult to fathom either - I just don't see the pattern you've yet to point out, anything at all to indicate Char had a romantic interest in Quess (or that he felt at all bad about the way he turned her in to a machine, which people usually don't do to people they're interested in) or that everything in Tomino's character work comes down to feelings or sex or whatever you want to call it.

>>15118590
>In my experience it actually tends to be used to pretend confusion over something relatively straight forward
In my experience it is usually used as a response to an extremely stupid non-sequitur.

>and yet you've yet to actually present any such pattern
I've referred to several scenes but you are bent on insisting they are not related in any way. What am I supposed to say to that? We come back to the subjective interpretation of body states problem. Or, at least according to you, the lack of these.

>And yet people have been debating it for decades, so logically there is.
Complexity and ambiguity are two different things and, as in the present case, they don't necessarily overlap.

>>15084822
People die during war.

Often suddenly and with no warning.

>>15077344
there's a sazabi and a nu gundam in there
what's there to not love?

>>15118785

> In my experience it is usually used as a response to an extremely stupid non-sequitur.

Most of the things it's used with make sense in context.

> you are bent on insisting they are not related in any way

No, I'm not. Of course they're related, since they all involve Char and/or Quess. What "I'm bent" on insisting is that your interpretation is invalid, because Char consistently shows no concern for Quess, uses her, is happy to admit he's used her and doesn't care for her; to the point that even when she said she loved him he just gave a smug smile and there wasn't the slightest reaction from him physically or tonally to indicate he cared. The scene then ended when she agreed to pilot Alpha, indicating that's what Char wanted all along, as if his talking almost exclusively about piloting with her wasn't enough a clue in the first place.

> We come back to the subjective interpretation of body states problem. Or, at least according to you, the lack of these.

The only time you've mentioned body states is in relation to Char touching his chest. Putting aside that I don't even know what the body states problem(s) you're referring to is, I also haven't denied that the scene happened, only that your interpretation has no merit.