ITT: /m/ related shows/movies that don't deserve the hate

>>15570126
CCA is pretty liked outside of this autistic board

>>15570126
>>15570144
/m/ doesn't hate the film. It's just really vocal about some questionable choices made by the production committee. Like introducing Quess.

>>15570151
>choices made by the production committee

>>15570166
What are you trying to say here?

File: 1493448201820.jpg (2MB, 2903x2087px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2903x2087px

>>15570144
>>15570126
We dont hate CCA.
We hate quess. Just Quess

>>15570172
It was Tomino's decision, not Sunrise's. Also only retards think Quess being a bitchy teenager think it detracts from the film, that's how teenagers act.

>>15570178

Not him, but Tomino is a for hire director, meaning studios generally go to him with jobs they want him to work on. He's always worked with Sunrise, presumably because for all his sniping about Bandai he maintained a good relationship with the Sunrise animation arm, but the only work he's ever stated to have approached Sunrise with rather than the other way around was G-Reco. Mind you, that doesn't mean the story of Char's Counterattack wasn't his, but it does open the distinct probability that Sunrise asked him to make a Gundam movie and gave him a list of some stuff they wanted included or changed what he presented them to fit their own needs. It's by no means definite, it's just it is a possibility.

You offer no counterpoint to all the complaints made about film

This not deserve hate explain

Every /m/ show that gets mediocre ratings from garbage sites like ANN/MAL

>>15570225
Who gives a shit about ANN, MAL or Mecha Talk when you're on /m/?

>>15570186
It's based on a novel.

>>15570151
>questionable choices made by the production committee. Like introducing Quess.

Simple: Teenage waifu-bait.

Don't act like other anime have never done this.

>>15570126
>>15570174

Why do people shit on Quess so much when Hathaway did something much worse? Quess is just young Reccoa, and personally I've learned to accept that but what Hathaway did is Gundam retard moment number one

>>15570126
Thanks to Quess we finally saw the true nature of Char, a fucking son of a bitch.

Question because I and my friends could never figure out the answer. What the fuck is the giant space T in the end supposed to be? Is it Tomino?

>>15570687
I'm using this one mate. Thanks.

>>15570126
Things to hate

-a complete 180 in plot from ZZ
-char was bad, then good, now bad again
-backstory is hinted at but never explored
-Queso is a cunt that shouldn't exist
-Hathaway is a little turd

Why is gundam famous for making annoying characters?

>>15570944
what's wrong with annoying characters?

>>15570944
There was nothing wrong with how Char was handled in CCA. Rewatch Zeta and pay more attention.

File: Char....jpg (81KB, 800x623px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x623px

>>15570965
>>15570944

>>15570958
I'm fine with annoying characters, but neither Quess nor Hathaway was needed in the story which should be primarily about Char and Amuro.

>>15570965
>Rewatch Zeta and pay more attention.
You mean MSG. Where Sayla literally calls him out on wanting to genocide the oldtypes

>>15570296

Two really, High Streamers released in early 1987 and Beltorchika's Children in 1988 while the movie was released in 1988 too; yes I'm aware. However a movie takes several years to produce in most cases, while a novel can be done in much less time so it wouldn't be at all unusual for Tomino to have made the novels with rejected ideas for the movie.

>>15570969

It always bemuses me that people connect those two despite Char clearly thinking about Lalah in the only shot from Char's Counterattack.

>>15571028
>It always bemuses me that people connect those two despite Char clearly thinking about Lalah in the only shot from Char's Counterattack.

Except that's not entirely true. In that scene he literally talks about shouldering the evils of mankind in order to develop everyone into newtypes. And he's not thinking about Lalah. He's thinking about Amuro because Nanai accuses Char of being unable to forgive Amuro for believing newtypes' greatest strength is compassion. And Char basically explains he can't forgive Amuro BECAUSE Amuro killed Lalah who found compassion in Amuro (i.e. Char believes it's hypocritical for Amuro to believe in compassion). His last word on the subject even implies he hates Amuro.

Char is fully referencing that scene in Zeta and he plans to be the human sacrifice, but he wants Amuro to go down with him as vengeance for killing Lalah.

>>15571028
>clearly thinking about Lalah
What kind of limited way of thinking is this. Does Lalah or his feelings for her exist in a vacuum that is not related in any way to the rest of his characterization?

Honestly, I was hoping for like a 2-4 minute stylized recap, both to refamiliarize with Char/the story and create buildup for tension and motivation, and then end it with this (0:00-1:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQMz7YHPIiI

This is a video game ending but it gives me something the movie/Zeta didn't.

The moment where Char snaps.

Hell you can take that frame of Char's silhouette facing the Earth or the one with the destroyed Hiaku Shiki then superimpose it to the beginning CCA battle for some powerful imagery/editing

>>15571055
>Char believes it's hypocritical for Amuro to believe in compassion
>His last word on the subject even implies he hates Amuro.
I can't believe what kind of bullshit people come up with. Come on. It's not that hard.

>She found compassion in the enemy (implication:and not in me)
i.e. "Amuro - good,me - bad".i.e. he is jealous because Lalah liked Amuro better because he was nice.
>People who are alike come to hate each other
means "I also want to be good but I can't, whelp"

He is not planning to be a human sacrifice or anything of the sort.
It's pretty clear from the scene in Zeta that he doesn't find the idea very appealing namely Amuro responds to Char's statement that he wants to make his own decisions that Char has to change(i.e. "sacrifice" his personal feeling) and be nice to other children( i.e. do thing AEUG's way instead of his own) but Char is not very convinced as demonstrated to the last when his heart is clearly not in his words to Haman and Scirocco and the latter even duly notes that he's being full of shit.
It's not exactly hard to pick up.

From here on I hope you can figure out on your own in what way two scenes are related.

File: Wish she was here.webm (2MB, 1328x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1328x720px

>>15571055
>>15571058

When he holds up the glass and looks at it he's thinking about Lalah. The movie isn't even subtle about it. Nanai's questions about Amuro are what make him think about her, but he's definitely thinking about her and not Amuro.

>>15570944
>a complete 180 in plot from ZZ
ZZ is the anomaly here, not CCA. It's actually not even the case that ZZ is so different from CCA, because by the end ZZ was pretty much in line with the tone of the rest of the series.

>char was bad, then good, now bad again
>If a character changes at all for any reason whatsoever that makes a work bad

>backstory is hinted at but never explored
>What is in media res?

>opinion
>opinion

>>15570944
I guess they could do a side story anime or manga covering the hinted backstory, plus it's more UC stuff so fits in with what the company like to do and sell

>>15571106
>When he holds up the glass and looks at it he's thinking about Lalah.
I don't see how that disproves anything I said. Of course he is thinking about her - he wants her to like him and to want to be with him and not with Amuro.

>>15571117

Because all I said was that in the shot used he's clearly thinking about Lalah, which he is. He talks about Amuro in parts of the scene, but not in that one part that people like to use because it makes for a simpler image despite not actually having anything to do with Amuro or sacrifice in the moment in question.

>>15570186
Except Sunrise wanted to make CCA after Hi Streamer got published.

>>15571028
>Tomino to have made the novels with rejected ideas for the movie.
Except he didn't, CCA is based on Hi Streamer, but since they wanted to make it into a movie Tomino wrote Beltorchika's Children to be adapted instead. Sunrise didn't liked it so they went with Hi Streamer instead

File: tumblr_mmu9b99NxU1re5609o1_1280[1].jpg (505KB, 1280x812px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1280x812px

I'm not bothered by Quess.

How can you be after already watching nearly 100 combined episodes of retarded teenagers fuck shit up in Zeta and ZZ?

>>15571129
Exactly my thoughts.

>>15570151
It pretty much makes it unwatchable. The only good part is the ending.

>>15571124
It has to do with not wanting to be a sacrifice.
If I remember correctly this particular shot when like
>Lalah... just because you could read people's souls
i.e.
>Fuck stupid Newtypes with their stupid Newtype magic. I wish this stupid faggot died so you'd be mine forever. Fuck being nice.Fuck.
And the scene in Zeta is like
>Be a sacrifice
>...Yeah...Sure

To sum up they both have the common ground of "Fuck being sacrifice" which is a pretty important thematic element.

>>15571150

The scene is more like "because you could read people's souls you and Amuro had an understanding we didn't and it caused your death", with Char just remembering and wishing he could still be with Lalah in the end.

>>15571164
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said.

>>15571168

It doesn't contain any element about sacrifice for a start.

>>15571177
It contains the element of wanting to kill someone just so you can be happy which is bad so if you want to be good you have to sacrifice your personal happiness. This is pretty much the import of the Zeta scene too.

>>15571129
Quess isn't any more annoying than Reccoa, Katz, Sarah, Fa, or Judau and friends. Hathaway is a total cunt tho.

>>15571197

> Char wants to sacrifice his personal happiness by taking Amuro out of the picture so he'd be happy with Lalah
> despite hating Amuro at the time and killing him not being something that would have made him unhappy

That's quite a stretch anon.

>>15571212
Reading comprehension failure I can understand but how did you fail to understand such a simple logic?
How could you confuse
>wanting to kill someone just so you can be happy
with
>sacrificing your happiness by killing someone
?

>>15571221

Because wanting to kill someone so you can be happy isn't self sacrifice unless you are sacrificing your happiness to do it.

>>15571228
>wanting to kill someone so you can be happy isn't self sacrifice
You are starting to tax my patience?
In what way have I suggested that it is a sacrifice?

>>15571233

By insisting that the situation involves sacrifice despite superficially having no element of it. How is it sacrifice to want to kill someone if doing isn't sacrifice at all?

>>15571245
I insist that the situation involves NOT wanting to be a sacrifice.

>>15571249

That makes even less sense, since again, he was quite happy to kill Amuro in 0079 and tried multiple times both before and after Lalah died so he certainly wasn't trying to sacrifice his happiness at the time and he tries to kill Amuro within the film so he's not doing so in the present either. Where is his sacrificing his personal desire to kill Amuro in revenge so as to be a good person? Or even expressing that he's thinking about doing so for that matter.

>>15571260
What part of """"""""""""""""""NOT"""""""""""""" wanting to be a sacrifice did you fail to understand?
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
>used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word

>>15571267

Anon, your post has implied that he's sacrificing his happiness by not killing Amuro or that he's not going to sacrifice his happiness by not killing Amuro and you keep acting indignant over a failure of understanding so please explain like I'm 5: what exactly is he doing in that scene that involves not wanting to be a sacrifice because frankly I have no idea what your own about and shouting or explaining what the word not means while putting it in big caps isn't helping since it's not the word NOT I'm failing to grasp it's where you think he's refusing to make himself a sacrifice at all.

>>15571278
>your post has implied that he's sacrificing his happiness by not killing Amuro
Which post?

>what exactly is he doing in that scene that involves not wanting to be a sacrifice
Refer to >>15571150
and further >>15571105

>>15571290

> You failed to understand what I meant with previous posts and want me to explain what I mean? Read the previous posts and you'll understand.

Would it surprise you to learn that that isn't in fact helpful. I still have no idea how you think anything in that scene is him not wanting to a sacrifice.

>>15571298
Those were my posts and in neither of them did I imply in any way that he was sacrificing his happiness by not killing Amuro as you claimed.

If you disagree with my interpretation this is a different thing but I think I made my reasoning clear enough.

>She found compassion in the enemy
He is jealous because Lalah likes Amuro better than himself.
>If only Artesia wasn't there
>Lalah... just because you could read people's souls
He wished that Amuro didn't exist or that he had died at the time.
>People who are alike come to hate each other
He feels guilty for feeling that way and being a the way he is but he can't help it.

i.e wanting to kill someone so you can be happy even though it makes you a bad person.
sacrifice - be good and lose what you want
not sacrifice - be bad and get what you want

>>15570178
The problem with Quess for me is that since this was the final showdown between Amuro and Char, I wanted it to mainly focus on them instead of random new characters.

>>15570965
This.

>>15570969
But fuck this meme picture it doesn't prove anything.

>>15570151
I've warmed up to it more than when I first saw it however I still wish it were an OVA rather than a movie because the pacing just goes into a crazy overdrive halfway through trying to wrap everything up.

>>15570126
It needed more time to flesh itself out. This would have made the new characters easier to digest and the context of the conflict better defined. Still, it's an admirable effort and a solid capstone to the themes of Gundam.

Quess is hard to like, but she -- like Zeta's characters -- is there for a reason.

>>15570126
I hate this movie so much

File: Gundam-F91.jpg (89KB, 352x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 352x500px

This is the best Gundam movie

>>15570174
Well, I see a lot of guys who go

> Char is out of character in CCA. He fought to save the Earth in Zeta, now he wants to destroy it. And he's hung up about Lalah despite telling Amuro he's over it. Tomino derailed Char for this plot to even work.

And at times it's just not worth it explaining Char's a liar, his idealism was crushed during the events of Zeta/ZZ, he's an angry manchild who doesn't want to be a leader and is tired of typical UC Bullshit so he wants to end it all with one final battle with Amuro.

>>15572015
So in a way McGillis Fareed is the most accurate char clone.

GG

>>15571984
It would have great as a 6 or 12 ep OVA.

File: Screenshot_66.png (387KB, 665x326px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 665x326px

>>15570126
How can anyone hate that smile.

>>15571999
I love it.

>>15570629

It's okay, Hathaway gets instant Karma later on in the UC.

>>15573039

> instant karma
> later on
> takes years
> happens to an alternate version of the character who didn't even do the one thing people hate the animated version for

Wow, that is instant. And appropriate.

>>15572315
Hail john

>>15572015
At times it's not worth explaining but

>Char's a liar
By which you are trying to suggest any combination of the following: that he is cynical/ not genuine in his feelings/ deceived about his own true nature; none of which is true even in the slightest.
>his idealism was crushed during the events of Zeta/ZZ
By which you are suggesting that his motivations in CCA are not idealistic which is not true.
>he's an angry manchild
By which you are trying to suggest that he blamed other people for his misfortune which is not true.
>who doesn't want to be a leader
By which you are suggesting he didn't want to take responsibility for other people which is the opposite of the truth.
>he wants to end it all with one final battle with Amuro
Which would suggest he had given up on achieving anything other than going out in a blaze of glory which is not true and quite against his established character.

>>15572015
Char is most complex in CCA. He becomes a symbol of spacenoid freedom, and his goal to destroy the earth, so mankind would move on, is pretty reasonable. But behind all his pretty words and noble goals, is a selfish and bitter goal of beating Amuro.

>>15575152
If you are trying to claim that Char's motivations are exclusively selfish you are wrong, though the fact that you would call his characterization "complex" seems to suggests otherwise.
Then explain to me your judgemental tone.
Do you not even realize that everything people do without any exception serves to benefit the self?

Or are you confusing "complex" for some other word? Controversial probably?

>>15575303

> Do you not even realize that everything people do without any exception serves to benefit the self?

This is only true if you define 'benefit' in the broadest sense and see things like self sacrifice in a very cynical light as driven by a desire to make yourself feel better.

File: LK0mc59.jpg (164KB, 971x870px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 971x870px

>>15572015
>>15575152
I think the worst part of CCA is how true to life politics it is
>HEY GUYS! I JUST COLONY DROPPED ABOUT A WEEK AGO!! WANNA SELL ME THAT HUGE FUCKING ASTEROID WITH NUCLEAR POWERED ROCKETS ON IT THATS LITERALLY HANGING AROUND THE EARTH?
>uh... how much are you willing to pay for it
>A LOT!
>ok. But you gotta promise some shit
>LIKE WHAT, GRAVITY SOUL
>We need you to sign this paper saying that you wont use it to ram into the earth like you did last week, you will pay us a fuck ton of money and you promise to keep it open and create more jobs
>SO... IF I GIVE YOU THIS MONEY AND DOUBLE PINKY SWEAR NOT TO COLONY DROP YOU (like I have like 9 times before) WITH THIS SELF PROPELLED DEATH MACHINE POWERED BY /NUCLEAR FUCKING ROCKETS/.... YOU WILL LITERALLY LET ME HAVE IT AND EVEN REMOVE ALL FEDDIES FROM THE AREA?
>yup
>FANTASTIC. WHERE DO I SIGN?

>>15575318

More like

> HEY GUYS! I JUST COLONY DROPPED ABOUT A WEEK AGO!! WANNA SELL ME THAT HUGE FUCKING ASTEROID WITH NUCLEAR POWERED ROCKETS ON IT THATS LITERALLY HANGING AROUND THE EARTH?
> uh...not really
> oh, did I mention that I'll destroy some colonies if you dont
> well then good sir, how much are you willing to pay for it
> A LOT!
> ok, we do need some money for welfare so it'll help.

>>15575307
>see things like self sacrifice in a very cynical light as driven by a desire to make yourself feel better
But it is true and I don't see it as cynical in the least.

>>15575341

So if someone gives up their life for another in a such a way that they alone know what happened, knowing they will be tortured extensively before being slowly killed; all that feeling bad, giving up their own chance at further happiness and death is worth it to briefly feel good because they alone know they did it for a good cause? And you don't think that's cynical?

>>15575351
I'm not sure I understand you correctly or fully or if you expressed yourself correctly or fully but phrased in this way this is the very definition of "not cynical".

>>15575373

If you believe that constitutes self interest then it is by dictionary definition actually. But let's restate it just in case:

> a person is placed in a position where they can save someone else's life at the cost of certain torture and slow death or walk away and no-one else will ever know if they choose to walk away
> they choose to sacrifice anyway
> they are tortured and eventually killed

If you believe that that's a selfish action and the satisfaction they get from knowing they did a good thing outweighs the pain of torture and death then that is the literal dictionary definition of cynicism.

>>15575388
No.I don't believe it's selfish. I believe it's dictated by self interest. I made that distinction in my very first post.

Cynicism is the denial of moral values.
I don't know how inflicting yourself physical damage over an abstract benefit like "being good" can be regarded as cynical in any way.

Why do you think a person would do anything if not in order to be rewarded in some way or avoid punishment? How exactly do you think this works anyway?

>>15575449

I think it works exactly the opposite of what you just said, because welcoming pain, death, defeat or an otherwise undesired scenario for the sake of someone else with no reward or for a reward that you would not consider adequate if acting solely for you own benefit is basically the definition of a selfless action. That you think it's not possible that someone could do so is what makes you a cynic, because while "denial of moral values" is A definition of cynicism, it is not the only definition of cynicism and hasn't been with a long time, if it ever was. It's not even the main definition for most people.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cynic

> a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cynic

> one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cynic

> A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cynic

> a person who believes that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cynic

> A cynic is someone who believes that humans are selfish and that they only do something if it will benefit themselves

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cynic

> A person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honourable or unselfish reasons.

You can view yourself as not a cynic if you wish, but you are a cynic by most people's definition.

And yes, I understand it's counter intuitive that it could happen but that's why it's a biological mystery that it does happen. Even in the animal kingdom it happens, and is defined by one animal giving up it's chance to mate so another animal (usually one of it's own kind) can do so instead. No-one knows why, but it does happen.

>>15575577
>it's a biological mystery that it does happen
No. Not really.

>for a reward that you would not consider adequate if acting solely for you own benefit
Precisely what I was saying. You are not acting "solely" for your benefit. Notice that you yourself are still using the word "reward". It's just that you are rewarded i.e. benefited for acting on someone else's behalf.

File: Mobile-Suit-Gundam-Wing.jpg (1009KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 2000x1000px

>>15570126
>/thread

>>15575673

> Not really.

If you believe you have the answer that has aluded biologists for at least the last century since people began to ponder that behavior specifically then you might want to pass it on. In the meantime, it's an actual biological mystery.

http://www.livescience.com/8870-digital-organisms-shed-light-mystery-altruism.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327201-200-10-mysteries-of-you-altruism/
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/09/22/349639464/the-biology-of-altruism-good-deeds-may-be-rooted-in-the-brain
https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/news/the-evolution-of-altruism/

I could go on finding links beyond the first hits on a quick Google, but the point is that actual neuroscientists, biologists and so on are still looking in to the matter because while there have been theories to explain it, there has never been a definitive explanation.

> Notice that you are still using the word "reward".

Notice that I also specified "with no reward".

>>15575732
By claiming that it's a "biological mystery" you are indulging in some sort of spiritual complacency.
As far as I can see the links you posted give barely any useful information at all, mostly meme-tier stuff,but still you are ready to take them as the last word of scientific research?
Using pseudo-science to justify your ignorance is as far as you are willing to go?

Also there is enough evidence that prosocial behavior has to do with reward.

The so called "emotional part" of our brain is the limbic system. The parts important for emotion are the basal ganglia and the amygdala they are the most integral part of the reward and punishment circuit respectively. If they are damaged conditioning is impossible. A part of the brain they connect to is the prefrontal cortex that regulates complex social behavior. If the connections between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex are severed social behavior is impaired in various ways - basic decision making abilities, acting deliberately and proactively, regulating our bahaviour etc. etc. depending on the exact connections damaged. All those thing and more have to do with motivation.
The concept that decision making is possible in any way outside of the concept of reward/punishment is absurd from a biological perspective.

A standard social behaviour experiment is the one with the monogamous prairie voles.
During mating two hormones integral for pair bonding are released in the Ventral Tegmental Area of the voles brain (which is part of the nucleus accumbens which is part of the basal ganglia) - dopamine and vassopresin(for males) or oxytocin(for females).
Impair the release of vassopresin and let a male vole mate with a female and he won't bond with her.
On the other side introduce a male vole to a female and inject vassopresin in his brain and he will bond with her without mating.
How does it work?

>>15575732
Vassopressin and oxytoxin are used for forming social memories. Dopamine motivates reward seeking behavior.
The reward is associated with the social memory of the female. The male bonds with i.e. is conditioned to love the female through rewarding social interaction.

The mother-infant bonding circuit is pretty much identical. If fact from evolutionary perspective it is the most ancient and all altruistic behavior is a mutation of it. Oxytocin originally relaxed muscles in the breast and uterus to help lactation and birth. Today it is dubbed the as "the cuddly hormone" by your favourite pop articles and it is recognized as integral for social behavior.

Social behavior is initiated in the orbitofrontal cortex that is considered a part of the prefrontal cortex or of the limbic system. What it does is associate reward with reward inducing behavior. It is very important for motivation. The orbitofrontal cortex is observed to be especially active in new mothers.

etc.etc.
After giving you basic guidelines I now allow to use Google to educate yourself further.

>>15576008

Beyond saying that the concept of rewards is biologically sound all those words didn't actually have much substance in relation to the point. Just because rewards are important doesn't mean they are all important and none of what you wrote actually explains altruistic behavior. Which is why it's something neuroscientists and biologists have been trying to pin down, dismissive as you be of the efforts. And no, that's not the best I could find or the last word I could find; it was literally the first results on a Google search for the topic. Nor was it something I only found out by reading Google today as you seem to be implying. I could post more, but I'm not sure you won't just dismiss anything that you don't like as "meme" tier pseudo science, simply because it doesn't comply with your view of human behavior.

http://www.pnas.org/content/75/1/385.full.pdf
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/13

I'd hope those are something you'd have more trouble dismissing despite also being from a 2 second Google, but who knows. Why don't you actually explain what motivates altruistic behavior, what reward is there for a human or other animal in giving up their life in favor of another, often while experiencing pain/punishment, since you seem to think it's a completely understood phenomenon? Or why believing that people only act out of self-interest is not cynical despite that being the dictionary definition for that matter.

File: e9724d06d964d91e937874b67ccab1791481589502_full.jpg (166KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 640x960px

>>15570126

File: Gundam_Build_Fighters_Try_DVD1.jpg (78KB, 353x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 353x500px

>>15570126

>>15570126
I never watched this movie simply because I can't stand Char's design. It's so ugly.

File: 1492994275073.jpg (75KB, 600x681px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x681px

>>15576964
You are missing out.

>>15576274
What I wrote does relate to altruistic behaviour.Reward is not "also" important.The fact that the brain is a feedback mechanism is what allows us to survive.
I haven't claimed absolute knowledge of anything - just a basic knowledge of the human brain, control theory and common sense. I just don't endorse mysticism.
"Meme" articles are not wrong, just needlessly sensational.
I have no memory of dismissing any scientist's effort.
I don't have the time to carefully read the article you posted right now but on a cursory examination it doesn't contradict with anything I've said.

A reward is a positive reinforcement indicating the successful completion of a goal-directed behaviour.

It is weird that you are asking me to explain the "meaning" of an evolutionary phenomenon when a few pointless arguments back you were the one trying to convince me that I don't understand evolution. What motivates altruistic behaviour is that it is rewarding. It is rewarding because it happens to be rewarding because of some random gene mutation.

I can't say that I have absolute knowledge of what this was but my previous post suggests a direction to work in - the ability to associate reward with social memory.

I said it before and I will repeat it again and I hope you understand me this time - I don't think altruistic behaviour is "only" self-interested. All of our behaviour is self-interested but altruistic behaviour is "also" other-interested.

>>15576983

Well Neo Zeong makes more sense in light of this.

>>15576964
Oh come on. It's not even on the same level as Shirobako, with sameface ugly moe mugs.

File: 1465689538905.jpg (80KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x720px

>>15573211
Is this bait?

>>15570944
>-a complete 180 in plot from ZZ
This is not a bad thing.

>>15579193
Of course not. What makes you think it is?

>>15570969
>there came to a point on /m/ where people start thinking this picture isn't an ironic meme but start believing it

>>15579422
What do you mean by that?
The scene in CCA is not a reference to the scene in Zeta and neither are the two scenes directly related but they demonstrate a natural development on a single theme and consistency of characterisation so what's the problem with juxtaposing them?

File: char in a nutshell.png (260KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 640x480px

>>15579402
Literally every statement made about Char's character in that post can be easily rebutted with a quote from CCA, letalone the entire tetralogy.

File: AWOT_Promo_Poster.jpg (48KB, 349x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 349x480px

Perfect conclusion the the series in my opinion. Fuck the haters.

>>15579619
Go on.

File: 1462440906714.jpg (57KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x450px

>>15579626
The interesting thing about AWoT and CCA is that they both suck, but for completely different reasons from what everyone is always complaining about.

File: Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam - 48 (BD 720p) (OZC) (NakamaSub).png (533KB, 992x738px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 992x738px

>>15579630
>Char's a liar
>So, Quess was searching for a father figure. I see why I found her annoying and turned her into a machine.
>I never once betrayed anyone, Haman.

>his idealism was crushed during the events of Zeta/ZZ
>Amuro! Don't you realize the humans remaining on Earth... they're just vermin infesting the planet!?
>Humans, who possess warmth, are still cruel enough to destroy the Earth. You must understand that, Amuro!
Not a quote, but watching Kamille's decay and getting his shit pushed by Haman and Scirocco caused him to lose faith in himself, and the AEUG's failure to change the Federation caused him to lose faith in naturally emergent contolism.

>he's an angry manchild
>If it hadn't been for you...!
>If I had beaten you with an unfair advantage, it would have been my shallow victory!
>Lalah Sune was a woman who could have been a mother to me. You took her life, so don't judge me!
I don't have 0079 still on my hard drive, but
>Killing Garma to get at Degwin
>Dropping his murder plot after meeting Lalah
>Going Newtype genocide mode after Lalah saves him from Amuro

>who doesn't want to be a leader
I'm not tracking down the whole dilemma in which Blex tries to push Char into a leadership role, but that, as well as Bright preventing him from sortieing after Dakar. Although it's true he did decide to martyr himself in an attempt to change humanity.

>he wants to end it all with one final battle with Amuro
>You thought up this latest plan to get even with Amuro, right?
>I'm not trying to change the world!
>Nanai? Don't interfere in a battle between men!
>Looks like I win! According to my calculations, the back end of Axis is being pulled in by Earth's gravity.
>If I had beaten you with an unfair advantage, it would have been my shallow victory!

etc.

>>15579683

> Char
> watching Kamille's decay

What decay?

>>15579703
>Return to your world of darkness, Haman!
>Things will never return to what they were. Because I now have a better understanding of my duty.
>Neither Newtypes nor Cyber-Newtypes are really able to make a difference ... All we can do is kill others, isn't it?
>Those who really need to be eliminated are those whose souls are pulled down by gravity! However, even that cause is not worth so many people's lives.
Kamille became violent and hopeless in Zeta Gundam's third act, irrevocably tied to the battlefield like Scirocco, Yazan, or Reccoa. Char tries to guide him through this, but in giving advice to him, he realizes that he himself was unable to overcome the same emotional hurdles. Kamille's amnesia is a purification as a form of symbolic redemption.

>>15579841

> rebuffing Haman and shunning her darkness
> I now have better understanding of my duty
> even that cause is not worth so many people's lives
> violent or hopeless

The only line there that even remotely indicates either of those things is "All we (newtypes) can do is kill others, isn't it?" and that seems more a view that newtypes are only better than base humans at killing, not that newtypes only exist to kill or that he no longer considers himself as good for anything other than killing.

>>15579683
>Char's a liar
I know that this is contentious statement but he didn't lie to her to take advantage of her, did not deliberately deceive her about his feelings for whatever reason, nor did he, conversely, presume in any way that she possessed feelings for him or that he possessed superior qualities that would inspire such feelings in order to boost his ego.
I don't see how the "haven't betrayed anyone" thing has anything to do with the issue at hand.

>his idealism was crushed
Recognizing the limitations of the current situation doesn't make one cynical. If you don't believe that the status quo can't be changed under the current set of circumstances that doesn't mean that you believes it can't be changed under any set of circumstances.
Of course if by idealism you mean optimism he was never there in the first place.

>he's an angry manchild
I never said he wasn't angry. Recognizing other people's circumstances as being outside of their conscious control doesn't mean you have to unconditionally accept their position when they directly threaten you or your moral principles.
>to get at Degwin
I gave no idea what you are trying to imply.
>dropping his murder plot
He did not.

>who doesn't want to be a leader
You have failed to provide any single suggestion as to how his refusal to become the leader of AEUG has to do with not wanting him to take responsibility.
>he did decide to martyr himself
No. The opposite of that actually.

>he wants to end it all with one final battle
A common suggestion is that he is not interested in the outcome but simply acts out with demonstrative purposes. This is the point I protested to in my earlier post.Char is not the type to do that. It's kind of related to the martyrdom thing above.
Of the quotes you posted only
>I am not trying to fix the world
is vaguely relevant to this but I don't think such an interpretation actually makes sense in context or is thematically compatible.

>>15580494

> nor did he, conversely, presume in any way that she possessed feelings for him

He didn't need to. She flat out tells him she loves him at one point, and he appears to use her feelings solely to put her in a mobile suit as a weapon.

>>15580534
>appears
Well put.

>>15580007
Kamille's problem with his situation is the catch 22 he's found himself in. He did a complete 180 on Haman from, "We can understand each other!" to, "You are a demon of pure evil!" in the course of a single minute. Haman's guarded arrogance prevented her from overcoming her insecurities surrounding Char.
>How dare you meddle with my mind? You should be ashamed! Vulgar boy!
>You're no different from Char!
>The enemy we must destroy is Kamille Bidan. It's as simple as that.
Similarly, although he believes that, much like Char, an Earthnoid genocide is necessary, he recognizes that it's morally bankrupt and impossible. Thus, nothing can be done. When he tells Fa that things will never return to what they were, he's saying that he can no longer return to a life of peace because, again, he became irrevocably tied to the battlefield.

Comparatively, Kamille became very well adjusted in the middle of the series between his experience with Four and her eventual death.

>and that seems more a view that newtypes are only better than base humans at killing, not that newtypes only exist to kill or that he no longer considers himself as good for anything other than killing.
That is literally a grammatically incorrect interpretation. Here's the Japanese:
>Dekiru koto ittara, hitogoroshi dake mitai da na?
>All we can do is kill others, isn't it?
>All we can do
That literally means the only thing they can do. He's saying that's all Newtypes are good for.

File: setsuna alien bullshit.jpg (17KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 512x288px

>>15579631

>>15580616
>anime
>appears
No shit.

>>15580494
>he didn't lie to her to take advantage of her, did not deliberately deceive her about his feelings for whatever reason
>I don't see how the "haven't betrayed anyone" thing has anything to do with the issue at hand.
>By which you are trying to suggest any combination of the following: that he is cynical ... deceived about his own true nature

>if by idealism you mean optimism he was never there in the first place
I'm fairly certain that's what you meant, but in any case, his idealistic view of humanity was really just replaced by a far crazier set of extremist ideals.

>>he's an angry manchild
>By which you are trying to suggest that he blamed other people for his misfortune which is not true.
>I never said he wasn't angry.
>damage control
>Recognizing other people's circumstances as being outside of their conscious control doesn't mean you have to unconditionally accept their position when they directly threaten you or your moral principles.
Char has a raging hateboner for Amuro and a mommy complex for Lalah that guide his behavior. He's an angry manchild.

>I gave no idea what you are trying to imply.
His revenge plot against Degwin for killing his father. He blamed Degwin for his misfortune and took it out on the Zabis.
>He did not.
There was an entire scene where Kycilia confronted him about his identity and his murder plot and said right to her face that he had abandoned that ambition now that he found something more important to him (Lalah). Later he pointed his anger at Amuro, but yes, Sayla was able to persuade him into killing Kycilia instead.

>You have failed to provide any single suggestion as to how his refusal to become the leader of AEUG has to do with not wanting him to take responsibility.
He wanted to let humans change themselves, believing that the eventual migration into space was inevitable. He was resigned to being a simple pilot for the AEUG.

(cont.)

>>15581174
>>15580494
>>he did decide to martyr himself
>No. The opposite of that actually.
>But we're trying to take the people who have remained on Earth to space. Such an enormous task can't be done without at least one or two human sacrifices.
>However, in order to develop us all into Newtypes, someone has to shoulder the evils of humanity.
I used the word 'martyr' for dramatic purposes when, yes, 'sacrifice' would probably be more accurate.

>>I am not trying to fix the world
>is vaguely relevant to this but I don't think such an interpretation actually makes sense in context or is thematically compatible
It's likely he was just speaking impulsively to defend himself against Amuro's criticism, but the entire confrontation with Amuro is the point where Char's true character begins to shine through, as he only feels a need to be honest to Amuro in order to have an honorable victory. The other quotes were used to either suggest or demonstrate that, despite trying to fight Amuro fairly, he still established his own lopsided win conditions and instigated the battle with Amuro in mind instead of humanity. Nanai almost recognized this, but much like how Char uses her as political arm candy, which Gyunei Guss recognized, he lies about his intentions to her.

>A common suggestion is that he is not interested in the outcome but simply acts out with demonstrative purposes. This is the point I protested to in my earlier post.Char is not the type to do that. It's kind of related to the martyrdom thing above.
What does that even mean? If you can't explain what you mean and use evidence it doesn't matter what you believe.

Is this bait or did you seriously just not watch 0079 or Zeta or CCA?

>>15577582

> A reward is a positive reinforcement indicating the successful completion of a goal-directed behavior
> What motivates altruistic behavior is that it is rewarding
> All our behavior is self-interested but altruistic behavior is "also" other interested

To be self interested an action or goal has to be pursued with that the interest of the self, the reward for the self in mind. If the reward, feeling good through various chemicals, is only a by-product of the action and not the goal, then it isn't self interest of any kind. Your determination that the reward of feeling good through various chemicals is what motivates altruistic behavior misses that the reward is rarely the goal. It is a sop at best in most cases, a small consolation that gives small comfort before or during pain and death, maybe after for pain. Few people set out to sacrifice themselves because they think it'll feel good; for a start that implies that the satisfaction of doing it is worth the pain and/or death, which it logically isn't. People do it despite the pain or death, not because of it.

Any animal that can consider and rationalize their actions and rewards is unlikely to find "feeling good" adequate reward for dying or extended pain. Any animal that can't won't consider or act for the reward in the first place. That isn't mysticism, it's just common sense.

>>15581474
Actually I agree.
The reward is not a motivation and it was silly to say it is.
The reward is just a reinforcement.
A goal directed behavior has the purpose of completing it's goal, whatever it is.This goal doesn't need to have any meaning to the organism that pursues it. It might be that by some quirk of nature I have a constant craving for smoked cheese.Then I will do anything to procure smoked cheese whether it makes sense for me or not and won't stop until I do.
So if we are talking about goal-directed behavior chemicals that regulate it's initiation and (successful of unsuccessful) completion, or to say figuratively, indicate how far or close we are to the goal at hand.
So if we are taking about motivation, depending on what you mean by that, what motivates a certain type of behavior is either the chemical that initiates that behavior in response to certain stimuli or, if we think about it more abstractly, the goal of that behavior.
Successful completion of the behavior i.e. one that attains the goal, is positively reinforced (good), unsuccessful completion i.e. one that fails to attain the goal, is negatively reinforced (bad).

So finally what I wanted to say is probably this: people will avoid behavior that has been negatively reinforced before, and strive to repeat behavior that has been positively reinforced before.
You cannot expect any living organism to engage in a behavior that has been negatively reinforced in respect to a certain goal in order to achieve that goal and conversely you cannot expect it to not strive to engage in a behavior that has been positively reinforced before.
I called this self-interested because it is based on our personal perception of what behavior is good or bad and not on other people's perception of what behavior is good or bad even though the goal of the behavior, if it were altruistic, would be the well-being of others.

Does this please you better?

>>15581174
>deceived about his own true nature
I already said that he was not deceived about his true nature in his interactions with Quess.
Nor was he in his confrontation with Haman. Why do you take his words to be a defense of his moral character when there is nothing in the context of the scene to suggest that?
>I'm fairly certain that's what you meant
You must be a psychic because all I said was "Are you suggesting that his motivations in CCA are not idealistic?" What part of this contains the notion of optimism? Why would I be as retarded as to think that Char was ever an optimistic person?

>damage control
Anger =/= blaming other people for you misfortune.I explained the reason for that too.
>has a raging hateboner for Amuro and a mommy complex for Lalah
Whoa.What a sophisticated argument showing a depth of understanding of human nature!

>said right to her face that he had abandoned that ambition now
Yeah, because he would say to Kycillia he hates her guts and plans to kill her.
What I'm saying is not that he lied, but consider that in the situation he would be afraid of Kycillia and insecure of himself. Also his ambition was not to murder the Zabis per se but to fight for justice. He is not as stupid as not to recognize that the Zabis are not individually responsible for the current situation, but that doesn't mean he can just stop despising them on a personal level.
>Sayla was able to persuade him into killing Kycilia
What?

>He wanted to let humans change themselves, believing that the eventual migration into space was inevitable.
And?
>He was resigned to being a simple pilot for the AEUG.
He joined them to further his goals. He wasn't willing to unconditionally subscribe to their views if they conflicted with the latter so I wouldn't call him a simple pilot.
Again you are citing the fact that he didn't want to be their leader itself as a proof that he didn't want to take responsibility. It is not.

>>15581205
>I used the word 'martyr' for dramatic purposes when, yes, 'sacrifice' would probably be more accurate.
I am very well aware of that.I already had an autistic argument about that with someone in this very thread so you can refer to it if you want to.
By a demonstrative action I meant an action exclusively intended to prove a point. Demonstrative behavior would be "You stole my candy so I'm going to throw a tantrum to show you how hurt my feeling are" or "You stole my candy so I'm going to mope in the corner until you notice how hurt my feeling are", not "Give be back my candy, you dumb asshole."
Char is out to take what he wants.
"One or two human sacrifices" here refers to, you know, the gazillion people that will die just because he wants to play hero and he is aware of that. Shouldering the evils of humanity can only be seen as a sacrifice if there was any indication that he perceives himself to be of a high moral character for doing so, even though there are many indications to the opposite. He is just acting according to his own personal perception of right and wrong.

>in order to have an honorable victory
I don't think he cared about honor.
Or that he was honest with Amuro because of that.
>he lies about his intentions to her.
I don't think he lied to her. Or that he didn't lie to her. He is just being his usual roundabout self.

So I gather that your argument is not that he was not interested in the consequences of the operation because it only had demonstrative purposes but because he has no personal interest in social causes even though this directly contradicts the narrative, the premise of the story and everything about his characterization?
OK.

>>15582296
>he was not deceived about his true nature in his interactions with Quess
He never realized why he found her annoying and turned her into a machine until Amuro pointed it out to him. He also believes he never betrayed anyone because his fingers were crossed. He is trying to rebut Haman's criticism. That's literally a defense of his moral character.

>Why would I be as retarded as to think that Char was ever an optimistic person?
Evidently, you're retarded enough to think he's not a manchild, so there's a possibility there could be some misinterpretation of the meaning of 'idealistic' in that context.

>Anger =/= blaming other people for you misfortune
I was making fun of you.
>Whoa.What a sophisticated argument showing a depth of understanding of human nature!
>damage control

>Yeah, because he would say to Kycillia he hates her guts and plans to kill her.
That's not all there is to the scene. His passion for Lalah was real and caused him to redirect his hatred towards the evils of Newtypes after Amuro kills her, as demonstrated by his rant. Provide a quote proving that he simultaneously wanted to fuck his mom or commit Newtype genocide in addition to the Zabi death plot.
>that doesn't mean he can just stop despising them on a personal level
Manchildren live very whimsical lives.

>What?
He exposed his hateboner for Amuro and Sayla talks him into stopping the fight and to once again blame the Zabis for the conflict (don't have 0079 on my hard drive so I can't quote her logic).

>And?
That means he wasn't assuming responsibility.
>He joined them to further his goals. He wasn't willing to unconditionally subscribe to their views if they conflicted with the latter so I wouldn't call him a simple pilot.
I, too, would fight for the great TITANS despite the job description involving gassing my people and requiring an Earthnoid birth to live my life as I predefined it (soldier) instead of fighting for the AEUG.

(cont.)

>>15570944
>a complete 180 in plot from ZZ

ZZ ends with setting up CCA though and the events that occur in it help pave the way for Char's viewpoint that people on earth are a bunch of incompetent fucks who will never change their ways until he does something drastic to force them to.

File: 1410485007345.png (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>15582296
>citing the fact that he didn't want to be their leader itself as a proof that he didn't want to take responsibility. It is not.
>I don't want to take the responsibility of leading the AEUG
>i.e. I am a-ok taking the responsibility of leading the Contolism movement, which is currently represented by the AEUG
>???

>>15582325
>One or two
>gazillion
Are you actually retarded?
>Are you calling me a human sacrifice?
>Maybe human sacrifices run in your family.
Char expected to meet a some form of physical or spiritual death for trying to force Contolism on humanity.

>sacrifice if there was any indication that he perceives himself to be of a high moral character
That has nothing to do with what 'sacrifice' means.
>shoulder the evils
>high moral character
That means doing the evil deeds humans require.

>I don't think he cared about honor.
>Nanai? Don't interfere in a battle between men!
>If I had beaten you with an unfair advantage, it would have been my shallow victory!

>Or that he was honest with Amuro because of that
More accurately, they were both symptoms of his obsession with proving himself to be better than Amuro.

>He is just being his usual roundabout self.
Yes, he gave a vague response to defensively dance around the question. He also implied that Nanai was incorrect. That's how rhetorical questions normally work.

(cont.)

>>15582325
>directly contradicts the narrative, the premise of the story and everything about his characterization
>a dishonest, butthurt manchild throws a giant rock at the Earth
>his reasons could be A.) Daddy issues and/or B.) pls notice me, Amuro-senpai
>so he throws a giant rock at the Earth
His character is dishonest-butthurt-manchild and has been since 0079. The premise is he throws a giant rock at the Earth. The narrative is he fails and dies at the end because he leaked technology to the enemy in order to have a fair fight against his crush, causing many people to suffer in the process. I've worked with these people before. They're batshit insane and can be incredibly charismatic largely because they convince themselves that their own lies are the truth. That is possibly this phenomenon.

This isn't even analyzing Char's character anymore. It's just deconstructing your incompetent semantics. Use evidence to support your interpretations and connect the dots or fuck off.

>>15582353
What are those Newtype genocide and evils of Newtypes that you keep referring to?
The whole thing goes something like this:
In Texas colony Char tells Sayla that by their Newtype propaganda the Zabis are trying to create a rift between Spacenoids and Earthnoids and "Oldtypes will never leave Newtypes alone. Oldtypes must be destroyed". She tells him that Amuro is the Gundam pilot to which he responds "He is just being used". As Char and Sayla part she tells him to stop and he responds "I will destroy the Zabis".

Later in his conversation with Kycillia she suggests that his goals have shifted after meeting Lalah and he is more interested in the future of Newtypes rather than vengeance. He responds that acting out of your personal feelings is unwise and that he is ready to cooperate with Zeon in order to advance humanity.

Later in his confrontation with Amuro he tells him as in his conversation with Sayla "Nothing personnel kid. I just have to kill you becuase you are being used by the Federation." Amuro tells him that the Zabis are the ones using Newtypes.
Amuro:"Lalah said Newtypes shouldn't fight each other"
Char:"Newtypes will always be used as tools. It was her fate to die."
Amuro:"Even though you are a Newtype!"
end of fight
Sayla:"What has Amuro done to you?"
Char:"He killed Lalah."
Sayla:"So did you!"
Char:(to Amuro)"Then you can join be."
Amuro:"Are you crazy?"
Explosions etc.
Next Char retires with Sayla. He plans to kill Kycilla, she tries to stop him, he responds " I can't let her get away."

At no point is it implied that Char doesn't hate the Zabis anymore, quite the opposite of that. Still he doesn't think that his personal feelings are a good justification to act against someone. He says as much in his conversation with Kycilla. Still it is made clear that she in only interested in Newtypes as far as they can help her retain her position of power. There is no way he could ever approve of something like that.

>>15582399
In his conversation with Sayla and later it is demonstrated he doesn't think that Amuro is a bad person or is to blame for the position he is in. For that reason he doesn't want to admit he has personal feelings against him. When he is confronted with that he retires from the fight.
Notice the end part of the fight. It's basically "If you are a decent person then you should be able to realize that the way you feel is wrong and let go of it", "I can't change the way I feel", "Then you are bad."

>He never realized why he found her annoying
But he realized that he did.
>He also believes he never betrayed anyone because his fingers were crossed. He is trying to rebut Haman's criticism.
Haman implied he has a duty to obey her despite knowing that he disapproves of Neo Zeon in order to provoke him. He disagreed he has any duty to obey anyone whatsoever. She proceeded to comment that he has served the Zabis, people she must know he despises, so well and that she is disappointed in him for failing to fulfill his duty to her in order to enrage him further. What does this look like to you?

>That means he wasn't assuming responsibility.
Becoming the leader of AEUG means he would have to let humans change themselves, believing that the eventual migration into space was inevitable.
Also:
I don't want to take the responsibility of leading the AEUG=/=I don't want to lead the AEUG

>I, too, would fight for the great TITANS despite the job description involving gassing my people
Yes, if you didn't mind gassing people, and their actions would further your goals you could join them without necessarily subscribing to their views. Like Scirocco for example.

>>15582399
>Are you actually retarded?
I don't know if I am retarded or not but Char is most definitely referring to the people.
>Char expected to meet a some form of physical or spiritual death for trying to force Contolism on humanity.
Maybe you could try to provide some proofs too, you know.

I've explained this many times including in this thread and I'm going to exlain it again.
Before Dakar:
Amuro realizes that Char is dissatisfied with AEUG's way of doing things. He finds that attitude arrogant.
Amuro: You should help us.
Char: What about my feelings? Are you asking me to pretend?
Amuro: I'm asking you to change.
From this perspective sacrifice is letting go of his personal feelings to accept the views of the AUEG i.e. to be a person that is acceptable by community standards. His aforementioned confrontation with Haman is a variation on this theme too - the suggestion he found repulsive is that he should have been able to conform to Neo Zeon's standards of thinking and behavior and in order to be acceptable as a human being.

In the last episodes as he dutifully recites the optimistic views of the AEUG it is made more than clear that they are not something he believes in personally.Scirocco also points it out.


Honor means fairness and honesty.
You think Char was striving to prove himself a fair and honest person by fighting Amuro?
Is a battle between men inherently fair and honest?


How does expressing your feelings to someone imply obsession with proving yourself better than them?

I'm watching through ZZ currently. I fucking hated the first 15 episodes. I understood the idea of where they wanted to go, but the execution is fucking stupid (I can't call it terrible because elements within the show lampoon the fact it's being played for laughs ie the music).

Now that I'm into the 40's I actually am coming around to it. I'm enjoying it far more than i thought I ever would, but I'm also infuriated as fuck with the purple newtype magic invulnerability that's been displayed a few times now. What the fuck is that shit?

I could complain more about some things but I've resigned myself to accepting that we'll never get good answers for them: lack of security on mechs (a key etc), getting out of the mech and not immediately killing opponent, why the fuck argma didn't restock a decent crew the numerous times they docked or met with AUEG entities, why didn't the dublin drop annihilate everyone in a 500km fireball and standard high levels of plot armor right until the story needs them to die.

UC gundam is not without it's flaws but I am loving it more for some reason.

>>15582703
>Newtype genocide
I was exaggerating for comic purposes. I'll show the 'evils of Newtypes' below.

>Later in his confrontation with Amuro he tells him as in his conversation with Sayla "Nothing personnel kid. I just have to kill you becuase you are being used by the Federation." Amuro tells him that the Zabis are the ones using Newtypes.
>Amuro:"Lalah said Newtypes shouldn't fight each other"
>Char:"Newtypes will always be used as tools. It was her fate to die."
>Amuro:"Even though you are a Newtype!"
This is inaccurate.
>Newtypes like you are too dangerous to be left alive. I'm going to kill you.
> ...
>But our real enemy is the Zabi family, right!?
>Not to me!
> ...
>Just now, Lalah said it: Newtypes aren't tools for killing each other!
>A newtype is just a powerful tool in battle!
No mention of the Federation or Zabis using Newtypes, only that the Zabis are the true enemy.

>Sayla:"What has Amuro done to you?"
>Char:"He killed Lalah."
>Sayla:"So did you!"
>Char:(to Amuro)"Then you can join be."
This is false.
>Big brother, stop! You have no reason to hate Amuro!
>When an enemy becomes too dangerous, I must get them while I have the chance!
>I thought your enemy was the Zabi family!
>Defeating the Zabi family is no longer my priority, Artesia. Once Zeon is no more, then we will enter the age of Newtypes. If you understand what I'm talking about, Amuro, then fight alongside me! Lalah would be so happy!
etc.

Sayla doesn't try and convince him to stop pursuing the Zabis although she doesn't use it as an excuse for him to stop attacking them, either.
>I've realized I can't let the Zabi family off the hook. I'm going to make them pay. (techincally, "I've realized I can't forgive the Zabi family," would be more accurate)
>zabike no ningen wa, yahari yurusen to wakatta
>Brother!
>You're an adult now.
This suggests both that his reasons for targeting the Zabi family are personal and that he changed his mind from forgiving them.

(cont.)

>>15582703
In episode 10, when Garma dies, Char says this:
>You were a good friend, but your father is to blame!
Degwin killed Zeon Deikun and stole Zeon, so Char decided to kill the Zabi family to inflict the same pain on Degwin.

>>15582706
>For that reason he doesn't want to admit he has personal feelings against him. When he is confronted with that he retires from the fight.
They actually just get blown apart, but yes, that is demonstrated when he tries to have Amuro join him.

>But he realized that he did.
Anyone can realize that they feel a particular sensation when around a person and attribute it to that person. He didn't make the effort to understand himself or Quess through the reasons. The reasons demonstrate understanding. To know and to understand are not the same thing.

>He disagreed he has any duty to obey anyone whatsoever
If someone is your commanding officer and they think that you betrayed them, you probably betrayed them. When you instigate their death, you definitely betrayed them. Char being obsessed with himself and his free, whimsical manchild spirit is an egotism on par with fingers-crossed.

Haman was definitely trying to piss him off, though. It was a well-known fact that he was grounded for failing to save Garma.

>Becoming the leader of AEUG means he would have to let humans change themselves, believing that the eventual migration into space was inevitable.
Although the AEUG took that stance, it wasn't necessary to them. Char, as the leader, could easily take a more forceful approach. The dilemma here, however, isn't that he did or didn't believe humans would eventually change themselves, but rather that he didn't want the responsibility. Siding with the AEUG instead of Axis demonstrates that belief. 'Mere' pilot might have been a more accurate term than 'simple'.

>I don't want to take the responsibility of leading the AEUG=/=I don't want to lead the AEUG
What drugs are you on?

>Like Scirocco for example
Scirocco was a leader.

>>15582708
>Char is most definitely referring to the people
>Are you calling me a human sacrifice?
>Maybe human sacrifices run in your family.
>you could try to provide some proofs too, you know
>Are you calling me a human sacrifice?
>Maybe human sacrifices run in your family.
Do I need to put asterisks around the important words?

I'd like to know what episode you're referring to so I can get a more accurate reading of the scene, although that interpretation of his character arc in Zeta is sound.

>You think Char was striving to prove himself a fair and honest person by fighting Amuro?
>If I had beaten you with an unfair advantage, it would have been my shallow victory!
>Is a battle between men inherently fair and honest?
>Nanai? Don't interfere in a battle between men!
>don't interfere
It's not rocket science.

>How does expressing your feelings to someone imply obsession with proving yourself better than them?
>symptoms of his obsession
It's the opposite. He wants to demonstrate the superiority of his values to Amuro and gets really butthurt around him. That's why he keeps whining about Amuro's inability to understand things in the same way as him during the Axis Shock.

File: gundam_seed_43.jpg (43KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 300x300px

the second half is pretty good

>>15583685
Where is the evils of Newtypes part?
Nothing posted here contradicts anything I said.

>>15583692
>Char decided to kill the Zabi family to inflict the same pain on Degwin.
There is nothing to suggest that.

>He didn't make the effort to understand himself or Quess through the reasons.
I think in the context of the story the fact that he consciously acknowledged to himself he he felt that way about her is important enough. Not that you would care about that.

>Char being obsessed with himself and his free, whimsical manchild spirit is an egotism on par with fingers-crossed.
You are free to like it or dislike it as you please as long as you are capable of properly making the distinction. Regard it as selfish as if you insist but delusional it is not.

>it wasn't necessary to them
I think that not committing mass murder was one of the distinctive qualities of their ideology.
>Char, as the leader, could easily take a more forceful approach.
He was explicitly asked to change and be a sacrifice. Excuse him if he though he was actually expected to comply.
>The dilemma here isn't that he did or didn't believe humans would eventually change themselves
Then why is it constantly discussed?
>rather that he didn't want the responsibility
Being disillusioned with the AUEG because they prioritize avoiding conflict and then going around dropping colonies on your own means you don't want to take personal responsibility for introducing changes?
>Siding with the AEUG instead of Axis demonstrates that belief.
I think it demonstrates that he didn't approve of Axis trying to restore the Zabi regime, something he quite emphatically protested against.

>>15583695
>Do I need to put asterisks around the important words?
In the scene in CCA he is referring to the people, not himself.
There is nothing to suggest he considers himself a sacrifice.
You do agree that his character arc in Zeta was that he didn't want to be a sacrifice? Why would he suddenly want to be in Zeta?

>>15583695
>It's not rocket science.
Not wanting to appear weaker than someone can be a good reason to want to fight someone on equal terms. This however has nothing to do with honor. Strive not to use words incorrectly because your lexical confusion can lead you to mix up concepts you shouldn't be mixing up.

>That's why he keeps whining about Amuro's inability to understand things in the same way as him during the Axis Shock.
Consider the following:
Maybe he is not butthurt and maybe he doesn't want to prove his superiority? Maybe he wants Amuro to...understand him? (gasp!)

>>15582254

It's rather hard to reinforce a goal like self-sacrifice, at least through actual experience. Sure, some people are going to survive it, but putting aside that many of them will never have a second chance at it since it's a fairly rare thing, a lot of people who do survive it won't take a positive reinforcement of "that was a good experience" and/or "that felt good" out of it. Certainly, there's few, if any, who'll take "that felt good, I should do that again" out of it.

Now, it can be indirectly reinforced socially through stories and lessons of various kinds, but while there will be some heroic examples that set a positive reinforcement of "I hope that I would do that in a given situation", there'll be at least as many (and probably way more really) that reinforce "that's a noble ideal, but it'd hurt like hell and isn't really worth dying for". Stories are more likely to reinforce the former, while direct experience of pain and life, as well as indirect experience of other's lessons is more likely to reinforce the latter.

I don't expect anyone or anything to do something that has been negatively reinforced, or to shy away from behavior that has been positively reinforced for that matter; but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen at times regardless. People and animals do it despite it running counter to their reinforced behavior or instincts, and regardless of perception. The fact that it has a real loss for them, the fact that the gain/reward/reinforcement is negligible compared to that loss is what makes it selfless in the first place. This isn't about pleasing me, you can believe it's not true if you want, but if you do, then it's a cynical view by the dictionary definition and doesn't actually answer how or why altruism is a thing.

>>15585681
Why are you continuing to argue with me when I already agreed that behavior is not inherently motivated by positive reinforcement?
What I am saying is that our perception of the "value" of a certain stimuli or it's corresponding behaviors is entirely subjective.

When I see a giant truck hurling towards me I don't need conditioning to know that this is "bad" and be driven by a feeling of alarm to undertake whatever action I give first priority to in order to avoid it.

When I see a giant truck hurling towards someone else I don't need conditioning to know that this is "bad" and be driven by a feeling of alarm to undertake whatever action I give first priority to in order to rescue them. Even in this case the distress I feel is personal.

How do the given examples differ? How is altruistic behavior completely different than regular behavior?

On the other hand you can't conflate such a basic instinctive reaction to innate stimuli to far more complex social behavior.
Do you donate to charity because it's your innate instinctive understanding that this is good or because you've been conditioned to think so?

So it's not so much about anticipated reward or punishment as much as it is about our immediate positive or negative reaction to stimuli that signals the initiation of a preferred behavior.
Reward and punishment are added to the value only post factum but are taken into consideration in further instances of the particular stimuli.

>>15576306

It got dumber and more infuriating than many in the franchise.