Perhaps made as a movie rather than R3 series so it’s as though it’s not canon to the original series?
| Presumably so, I am glad they did it this way because it put a stop to both sides raving about the Tr00 ending of Code Geass. Now fans get to enjoy whichever ending suits their made-up theories better. |
LelouchviBritMER said: KreatorX said: Presumably so, I am glad they did it this way because it put a stop to both sides raving about the Tr00 ending of Code Geass. Now fans get to enjoy whichever ending suits their made-up theories better. In neither R2 nor the trilogy does he get immortality. The Fukkatsu movie even completely contradicts code theory. The show staff have been repeating and repeating and repeating for 10 years that Lelouch is truly dead and not immortal, why would they suddenly change their tune in this movie? The movie is even called "Lelouch of the Resurrection", so take one guess what happens. Why are you telling me this? Tell that to those who want to keep believing their own theories. xD |
| The film in and of itself was meant to directly follow the compilation movie trilogy, but in most ways it can also work as a continuation of the TV series. As long as you can adjust your mind to accept certain differences, that is. Or, as mentioned before, you can treat it as something separate. Nothing prevents that from happening. The choice is up to the viewer himself or herself. Regarding the matter of Lelouch's survival, I find it to be a supremely boring topic of discussion myself. In either case, it is necessary to underline certain details. The new movie does not endorse the theory Lelouch that had intended to survive the Zero Requiem and was fooling the world by faking his sacrifice. In fact, it is explicitly mentioned that he had originally wished to die. Nonetheless, the movie does suggest something quite openly. In any case, I believe it is a pretty good film and fans should watch it in order to make up their own minds about these subjects. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 24, 2019 12:34 PM
Unfortunately, I am forced to contradict you in the interest of accuracy. That is not exactly true. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 24, 2019 10:02 PM
LelouchviBritMER said: What you wrote is highly inaccurate and based on clear misunderstandings of the movie! With all due respect, many more people have seen the movie by now. Multiple individuals can easily confirm what happened. There's not much room for speculation anymore, at least not about this aspect. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 24, 2019 10:29 PM
LelouchviBritMER said: In conclusion, what you are trying to push doesn't conform to the movie at all. Funny, I think that applies to your argument at least in certain parts |
LelouchviBritMER said: The things you say are in direct conflict with the lore of the universe. The movie is crystal clear that some interpretations just can't be correct because of that. They are in conflict with your own personal lore interpretation, which doesn't give any weight to various lines and scenes from the movie, which are also part of the current lore within the movie universe, thus you aren't providing an accurate picture of what happens during the film. It seems that you only wish to talk about this one topic over and over again, so the discussion is becoming circular. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 1:53 AM
LelouchviBritMER said: You're talking nonsense now. You call the fact that code bearers are immune to geass not part of the lore? That is a fundamental part of the lore in both the series as the movie. On the contrary, you've misunderstood and misrepresented me once again. There is no real contradiction, at least not if my statements are read carefully, in good faith and comprehensively. Which isn't what you are doing. Under normal conditions, that fundamental part would be absolutely true. The movie states that the conditions are not normal anymore, because of the changes in the World of C, so there are various effects. We don't know everything that has happened yet, at least not in both cases. Furthermore, Lelouch doesn't know if he's immortal or not. Nor do either of us. Which doesn't mean a Code isn't involved in both cases. I am going to give you an example. Let us assume we've downloaded a software program (you may call it Code.exe). Then the download server became corrupt and went down. Yet, in terms of the details, each case is different even if the program is the same. Because I had downloaded the Code.exe program many years ago, back in 2008, I can't access the online features anymore. I can't easily connect to the server. Yet I still have the original program on my hard drive and can use many other remaining options just fine. The Code.exe program isn't corrupt on my PC. Your case is different. Because you were downloading the program only today, right when the server was corrupted and went down, the change in the online connection has affected you more directly. The data transfer was imperfect. You can still try to use the Code.exe program, but it will have some errors due to partial loss and not receiving the full file. In both cases, it's still the same software program that was being downloaded on each PC. There are different effects because the process was altered and the programs were downloaded at different points in time, but it's not an entirely different thing in terms of the underlying nature or source of the Code.exe program. We'd need to test every option in order to determine what, exactly, is the full set of properties in each case. That is what would be fair. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 3:10 AM
| I've insisted that the changes in the World of C affected the transmission process of what was originally a Code taken from a specific person. Right now, it's definitely not the same thing in the current state. Be that as it may, there are things that the movie doesn't confirm or deny. So far, you've been acting like it's impossible for Lelouch to be immortal even in the movie universe (and that he didn't inherent this from Charles). The answer, officially speaking, is a question mark. Until someone kills him again (or at least tries to and they discuss the matter), we won't know. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 3:26 AM
LelouchviBritMER said: If he had had the code, there wouldn't have been doubt about his immortality. The doubts in question don't stem from the lack of a code. |
LelouchviBritMER said: The fact that it is incomplete and behaves radically different makes it not a real code! And C.C. did NOT say he got the code, she said he got an incomplete code. Don't lie about her words! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but you seem to be awfully fond of doing so. You didn't even know what she said, until I pointed this out. In other words, you're acting like an emperor with no clothes. At this point in time, you're moving the goal posts in order to refuse making even a small modification to your way of thinking. I was referring to Lelouch knowing he had a mark or not. If he had had the mark, he would have seen it during his months of being emperor and would NOT have chosen death because he would have known that was potentially impossible. No, not necessarily. You're assuming a heck of a lot here about Lelouch's knowledge as well as about when the mark would appear. Which is not shown. Codes do not need activation through death. Officially explained by the show staff I am referring to its physical appearance, not to activation per se. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 11:08 AM
Funny, I would say that is a far more accurate description of your behavior. Unless you're going to assume the mark has 4th wall breaking ears, it's just common sense to take from that that it's always there We do not have any direct evidence of when the mark appeared. Since you like to speculate and extrapolate, here's another possibility: Lelouch got the Code from Charles but since it was corrupted, as stated, that could be precisely why it didn't show up immediately. |
LelouchviBritMER said: "No you!" is literally all you ever say. How much clearer can a case be, you're the antagonizing troll here. Only in a case where you would serve as the sole judge, jury and executioner. Considering I've made various detailed posts and presented specific arguments in order to explain my reasoning to you as well as participated in debating different issues before this point, that's clearly untrue. I am not the one who pops up in numerous threads, even long before the movie was released, in order to repeat the same point over and over. I wouldn't mind that too much, even if it looks pitiful, if you didn't begin to make personal attacks and accuse other people of lying just because they don't agree with your way of thinking or, for that matter, they dared to point out there are inaccuracies in your descriptions and rhetoric. Honestly, your inability to have a respectful debate is getting tiresome. If it doesn't function like a code, it's not a code. A neutered dog is still a dog. A bird that can't sing is still a bird. Changes in function mean a change in the specific classification, but not in the underlying original nature. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 12:09 PM
I must have missed the part where they appointed you as the official keeper, interpreter and defender of the lore. Your constant twisting of words is quite aggravating, so you do deserve any frustration in the choice of my words That's a cynical stance, especially when you're the one who has been overly aggressive right from the start and refuses to even consider any opposing arguments. Basically, the only way to avoid "twisting your words" is to never disagree with you, but you can accuse others of anything and everything. Your costant twisting of my words does qualify as lying, especially because my very words are but mere posts higher up. I believe that's not for you to establish, especially when you were shown to be wrong about some of the details corresponding to what happened in the movie. This isn't the first time (nor the only thread where) you've claimed that Lelouch didn't get the Code from Charles, when C.C. actually says during the movie that he has inherited it. You've been trying to claim that a corrupted code must be "some other power" when it's really a damaged or incomplete version derived from an existing one (the Emperor's code). Because they still all have the core properties which uniquely identify them as dogs or birds. The ability to reproduce is not unique to dogs or birds. Very flawed analogy You don't have the sole authority to determine any of that. Like C.C has done numerous times, Lelouch has returned to life from a state of death at least once. That much cannot be denied. Recovery from death would be one of the core properties of Code-holders. We don't know if this also extends to full immortality yet, perhaps Lelouch could die of old age or something else because his code is corrupt, but recovery from death is not a small or insignificant property. But, according to you, it seems we must ignore this and conclude that it isn't a core property because of other unrelated aspects. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 1:03 PM
LelouchviBritMER said: pointing out that the anime/movies don't match with what you say is something anyone can do. Which is why I pointed out that parts of what you've mentioned didn't match the movie. And yet again an example of being disingenuous. And yet you wonder why i say you're lying. That's a disingenous response, because I didn't start with the personal jabs and attacks. At least admit you've been too aggressive, but you can't even do that much. Excuse me??? The meaning of my words is not mine to establish? This has gone beyond silly. Other people are reading these forums, you know? I think they'll notice you are not being too honest nor too accurate about this. You can make plenty of claims about what you meant, but in this case you're ignoring or downplaying the contents of your earlier posts. And that's what i've been saying this entire time. An incomplete code is not a code as we know it because it has different properties. My god. When will it get through?? Not exactly. If you seriously did, we probably wouldn't be discussing this anymore. You've briefly accepted that a process of receiving the code from Chales took place, after being confronted and countered despite your initial rejection of the premise, but then immediately jump back to the conclusion that isn't a code at all and can't be called a code...even if characters in the movie happen to also call it a code (regardless of whether they mention that it is in a corrupted or imperfect state, which they do, because the characters don't establish as firm a distinction in their dialogue as what you are doing here). the show staff described Charles as "not dead" not as "recovering from death" So no. I am referring to the fatal wound healing itself and the person standing back up, since obviously Charles still got shot and didn't fully bleed out, so there is a recovery from a brief death or a death-like state. It's funny how you have the curious policy of taking even casual comments made by the staff and then heavily paraphrasing or extrapolating from them in ways that are neither literal nor exclusive interpretations, in order to claim "the staff said this" even if their real statement was more limited...but then you get mad about other people using different language to refer to the same events. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 26, 2019 2:10 PM
| After talking about this with some other people...you're GeassedyLelouch, aren't you? It's sad to see you descend into such a mess of personal attacks and aggressiveness. Then again, it's not entirely surprising. You've been unnecessarily pushy, hostile and intolerant about this subject around the web. Right, i've looked them up to showcase how much of a liar you are. Only if "liar" in your world means "person who doesn't agree with me". "He isn't geassed, just pretends he dies!" " He tries to surprise his son!" "Poor Lelouch" "He tries to choose the most shocking timing, doesn't he" "I'm sure he tries hard not to laugh" I had already looked at this. It's a casual remark by someone (who?) in the staff. Not something where every word is meant to be literally read (in which case there are other staff comments that you definitely aren't taking just as literally, but have curiously chosen to ignore). Was Charles pretending the entire time, or only part of it? If we take this extremely literally, then presumably C.C. also "pretends to be dead" every single time she gets shot or stabbed in a potentially fatal manner. Which doesn't seem to match what we see in the show at other times. It seems that there is a recovery period for C.C. too, not just an entire sequence of "pretending". Why would Charles be different? Look, I've already mentioned that we can replace "die" with "receives a fatal wound and passes out" instead. Unless you want to argue that this wound didn't cause any fatal damage to Charles at all, unlike the many times when C.C. gets shot and passes out, in which case he was awake and pretending the entire time. That seems odd and a bit extreme. I think it's more reasonable to say Charles would first be waiting for the wound to heal, after a brief passed out state like C.C., and only then does he choose to pretend and pick the right moment in order to open his eyes to shock Lelouch. This could be possible, but also shows why an overly literal reading of the phrase is not wise all. |
GolbeztheGreatApr 28, 2019 12:22 PM
More topics from this board
Poll: » Code Geass: Fukkatsu no Lelouch Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 )Hyuse - Feb 24, 2019 |
226 |
by Alvie48xi
»»
Feb 28, 4:20 AM |
|
» This movie has one of the most emotional scenes of the seriesCickNipolla - Jun 18, 2022 |
20 |
by AnimeVibes_YT1
»»
Dec 24, 2024 3:59 AM |
|
» why it's not considered as sequel to 2nd season of original series???NaughtySempai - May 21, 2021 |
13 |
by Apratim
»»
May 11, 2024 11:14 PM |
|
Poll: » If you were Lelouch, what decision would you choose?Sanjay63773 - Jan 19, 2023 |
10 |
by Leonhart93
»»
Jan 3, 2024 6:26 AM |
|
» Code Geass: Dakkan no Zquercifolia - Sep 19, 2023 |
5 |
by quercifolia
»»
Oct 1, 2023 7:45 AM |