Live-action Full Metal Alchemist

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by QLRformer, Mar 29, 2016.

  1. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,308
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,670
    Barry just looked fat to me not muscular. And that big change from the slender Barry the Chopper in the original Anime to the fat man in Brotherhood is exactly why I choose him as Gluttony in the first place. I kinda imagined it being that Barry the Chopper when he was actually human would look more like he did in the original anime. After his soul ended up in the armor and his body becomes Gluttony he'd just start eating crap till he turns into the Brotherhood version. Though he would still have the mark on his tongue because he's gluttony where else would it be?

    Also out of all the characters in the two anime, he always struck me as the one with the most drastic change in appearance.

    Don't get me wrong, the original Greed I think had a much better design and better embodied the Sin in what little time he had. But it just kind of annoys me that he shows up just to die in both series. Ling didn't really seem Greedy at all, in fact quite the opposite because everything he did was out of devotion to his people as the ruler of his own nation. The only thing is he had more of a character arc in the series. I really want to like the first Greed but he's in the opening credits for the show longer than he's actually in the show itself. Even in Brotherhood, he lasted a little bit longer but not by much. Ling was Greed for the longest and we actually got to see him developed as a normal human character before becoming Greed. Because of that he ended up being a more interesting character. And I'd rather have one definitive Greed. Plus since I'm combining aspects of the different versions anyway, I can keep his character arc and then have him as a much different more Greedy character once Ling dies.

    Well the others did have to constantly check up on him. He wasn't constantly digging cause every chance he got he would just fall asleep in the middle of work. Hell even when he was actually moving half the time it seemed like he was sleep walking, not really aware of anything going on around him.

    I know officially he was male. Making him a woman is entirely from my own head cannon cause the character always appeared like a flat chested female to me. As I mentioned before, some women actually do have flat chests. While most women develop breasts during puberty some actually remain flat chested till their first pregnancy. Being that Envy has presumably never been pregnant before since she was created from a girl who died before birth it would make sense that she could still have a flat chest. As for the voice, I was actually talking about the English voice actor. Ed and Al being voiced by women is actually quite common because they're kids not adults. Though I believe in the original Anime they were actually voiced by kids and you can hear how their voices have changed when they were brought back for the animated movie cause they were about 10-12 when the series started and about 13-14 in the movie. In Brotherhood they were voiced by adult women. The difference with Envy is that he is an adult so his voice should be much deeper than the 12 year old Ed Elric.

    Also I just looked it up and he was voiced by a woman in Japan too but I was talking about Windy Powell the English voice actress for both versions of Envy. Also I had it wrong before, Ed was actually the same guy in both show. Only Al went from being voiced by an actual kid who hit puberty at some point while working on the original anime to a woman pretending to be a little boy in Brotherhood. That must of been odd for Ed going from working with another dude as his brother to working with a woman as his brother. For some reason I thought the entire cast was different but some characters are actually the same in both anime... I wish Scott McNeil was brought back for Brotherhood, especially since it would mean voicing Father as well as Hohenheim.

    Confidence is a form of Pride. Also, I wouldn't call someone who doesn't show their anger wrathful. That shows control, an ability to hold back your anger is a good thing. I've seen people who get angry at the littlest things, things that they wouldn't even care about if they stopped and took a moment to calm down. People with some serious anger management issues. Wrath isn't someone who rarely gets mad, that's a person who doesn't sweat the small stuff. Someone who realizes it's not that big a deal. Wrath is someone who is easily pissed off by the most mundane and meaningless thing. Wrath is a child throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

    The whole point of Wrath is that it's a form of anger where the raw emotion of whatever you're mad about is in control. Being calm, cool, and calculated in your attacks, that's impossible under the influence of Wrath. Even the most skilled fighter will lash out wildly in frustration when they're losing. You never see that with Bradely, he's always in control because he doesn't think he can lose, that's Pride not Wrath.

    Plus he was a brat and was totally ok with killing his own allies if they pissed him off. It seemed fitting to have Al's body rather than another dead infant and better explains how he ended up with Ed's arm and leg when they were both taken at the same time. Personality wise Brotherhood's Pride was much creepier, that kid scared the crap out of me. The original Anime's Wrath, while I kinda like his origin the personality of the character was kinda... well he was more just sad and pathetic than a true Wrath. He was also a terrible villain cause I pretty much just felt sorry for him the entire time he was on screen. I should not be sympathizing with the evil soulless villain child. If he were a real child then sure, but he's an artificial human with no soul. I don't want to have sympathy for him, I want to be terrified of the devil child. So he gets the personality of Brotherhood Pride, that terrifying little demon child.
     
  2. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    31,180
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +11,725
    Yeah, that was a distinct difference for me between the two. That homunculus were actually failed transmutations as opposed to something yanked outta the "Father." But still, having them yanked out shows that even the "Father" figure wasn't as "perfect"/above humans as he thought he was.

    I guess you have a point about apathy. I've always seen sloth as indolent. Just not willing to exert any effort. Hey look! Teenagers! :D  Just kidding! :p  (Don't kill me).

    Fat? I dunno..... It's like this:

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    vs this:

    [​IMG]

    You can see Barry wasn't fat. Especially when compared to Gluttony. Sure, Barry wasn't as developed or ripped as Major Armstrong, but come on now :lol 


    Yeah, in the first series, he had that mysterious background and you didn't catch onto it until it was mentioned he was locked up for so long. And only because he disobeyed Dante. His character was rather short lived, and without much screentime. Or maybe he had as much screentime as in Brotherhood, but it wasn't as memorable to me. In Brotherhood, he had a much more active role, but he "died" twice. Kinda. Greed was perhaps my favorite homunculus because of his personality. If you were going to combine him, I'd suggest not having him be "exacerbated" since Ling's humanity was more or less rubbing off onto him. Afterall, he did realize that what he needed all along was friends. Not material items. Perhaps in this scenario, Ling's personality was still rubbing off onto him as he was developing a stronger sense of honor, as opposed to actual "greed...."

    And now that I think about it, I don't think Ling would actually die. Ling more or less had immortality since Greed took over the body, and he sat as his soul within the body. With the regenerative capabilities he had, it became part of the physical body. So as long as he wasn't forced to use the philosopher's stone within him, I think Greed and Ling would be around for an extremely long long time.

    Yeah, he wasn't aware of anything going on around him :lol  Especially when he was at Briggs.

    Well, if we're staring at his chest :lol  he actually had more of a lean, athletic pec shape chest as opposed to breasts. At the very least, it would appear that way when you compare him to the female characters in either series. Oh, and I never watched the English dubbed versions. I can't stand how the voices sound in English dubbed anything. I've only watched Japanese dubbed anime with English subtitles. To me, it just sounds way better, and more authentic/natural in terms of inflection of voice, enunciation of words, etc.



    I can't buy into that. Confidence is more trust in something that you can achieve, while pride is like a feeling of satisfaction in an achievement of your own or people you know. So in another way of saying, confidence is before the fact, and pride is after the fact. To me, pride is separated from confidence by a fine line. But again, that's just me. As far as lashing out when they're losing, you're describing frustration as you said. Not wrath. Sure, Bradley had pride in his abilities, but he wasn't exactly boastful about it. He just showed you. When we're talking about the "sin" of Pride, that's being boastful of your abilities to where you lack humility. I don't recall him being anywhere near as Prideful as that little monster. But in a way, I saw each of the sins sharing characteristics of each other to certain extents. They all lacked humility at the very least. And they all had a sense of pride in their own way. But I saw that little monster as having more of it than anyone else.

    There are varying degrees of wrath, and one can actually be calm, cool, and calculating. Especially if there's a motivation to achieve a certain goal. Anger comes in many forms, and unfortunately, I've personally witnessed several. One being a character like Bradley. So I can't buy into that notion that to show wrath, you only have to be in some perpetuate state of rage and ill temperament. Wrath can manifest itself in many ways. Some more scarier than others.


    Well, we know that Pride in the original series was King Bradley and he exemplified one who was boastful, and he started the Ishvalan civil war. That kinda fits the persona and definition of pride in terms of it being one of the seven deadly sins. In Brotherhood, Bradley was named Wrath instead, and he was a man/homunculi with a job to do. Wasn't nearly as boastful as far as I can remember. But he did have anger. He even showed it a few times if I can remember that correctly. But again, wrath doesn't always have to be inconsolable rage, or outright anger as worn on someone's sleeves. Also, the start of the Ishvalan civil war was done by Envy instead in Brotherhood. And that was all at the behest of "Father" as opposed to Dante. In that sense Bradley was two different characters between the two series. The child Pride in Brotherhood was more of a brat than the "Wrath" in the first series.

    As far as how I saw the Wrath in the first series, he was a child. Always wanting to rekindle that relationship with Izumi Curtis because...that's his mother. But he took on Sloth as his mother instead, and inadvertently helped Ed kill her. I didn't see him as a brat though, but I did see Pride in Brotherhood as more of a brat. The first Wrath displayed anger in his own way. Anger in that he felt he was abandoned by Izumi after a failed attempt at human transmutation, yet he wanted his mother. His anger and hatred for her was uncontrolled. I guess you could say he was conflicted. And call me crazy, but it seemed like he was out for vengeance of some sorts. It also seemed he later let go of it all when he died and was at the gate. You could see him willingly going into the arms of a silhouette of what looked like Izumi. For all we all, that was probably Izumi. To me, he was no longer "Wrath" at that point...but Izumi's long dead son.

    Another thing about wrath is that it can be born of jealousy. While closely tied to envy, it can be kinda similar, but not the same. In the scenes leading up to the death of Wrath and Envy from Brotherhood, they more or less admitted they were jealous of humans. And it makes sense because in the original anime, at the very least, Lust wanted to become human. I don't know about the other homunculi. TO your point of having someone shoe horned in...perhaps King Bradley in Brotherhood was to Tricia Elric in the original anime series? They kinda fit...but not 100% without debate.
     
  3. Spartan0996

    Spartan0996 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +37
    All the homunculi are prideful in their own ways. Pride was Father's most prominent trait and he was the first homunculus that Father created, but clearly even after Pride was expelled, Father's pride was still intact. So it would make sense that all of his children have that one sin in common, because pride is the father of all sins.

    I think Brotherhood Sloth is about wasted potential. He spent like 400 years digging that tunnel and he's just lazily scratching and grabbing dirt. He's the fastest homunculus, who moves so fast you can't even see him. If he actually gave a shit and knew how to use his power he could eviscerate everyone with how strong and fast he is, but he just couldn't be bothered.

    I don't think Wrath was ever jealous of humans, he thought of us as like little pests always bothering him while he was working. Even in his dying breath (English Dub of Brotherhood) he says our idiosyncrasies made life worth living, basically saying our idiot behavior was entertaining enough for him to continue with Father's work and unlike Envy, he's not weeping while he says it, he's smiling peacefully.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  4. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    20,499
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +7,372
    Maybe FMA and GITS should have done a swap: have Motoko be played by an actual Japanese and have the Elrics be played by actual white people.

    IMO the way anime is popular around the world the best course (and maybe the safest) for adapting a live-action anime would be an international collaboration by both East and West.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Megastar

    Megastar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    4,733
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    217
    Likes:
    +958
    Someone made a meme about Hollywood and Japan swapping movies awhile ago, lol. They actually did that with the Romani Kenshin movies and fans love it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Raiju

    Raiju Kaiju Mod Moderator TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    22,728
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan (from NYC)
    Likes:
    +9,165
    I do agree that Trisha as Sloth wasn't explored very in depth as an antagonist in the first anime. It felt like the writers just included her to check a box on the list of Seven Deadly Sins and pad out the ranks of the homunculi. Even when Al mentions that the secretary looks exactly like their mother, Ed kinda avoids and then changes the subject since he doesn't want to even talk about it. Their fight ending in Sloth's death felt a bit rushed and obligatory, and didn't really resonate with me as much as Lust's tragic character did.

    I also agree Greed was wasted in the first anime but he was much better developed in Brotherhood as GreeLing. Greed wasnt just an outcast among the homunculi, he ended up a hero by sacrificing himself for the idea of friendship (he was a greedy but lonely guy and wanted to be loved, poor bloke).

    Yeah, Sloth as wasted potential is definitely his main theme. Reminds me of Skywarp. He could be an incredibly powerful Decepticon with his tekeportation ability, but he wastes it on dumb pranks and doesn't have the intelligence nor the ambition to implement that power more effectively. :D 

    Getting back to the live action movie, I'm guessing they'll only have time for Lust, Gluttony, and Envy (plus Wrath and Pride if they decide to foreshadow Bradley and his "son") during their limited screen time.

    Perhaps, but then you'd end up with the problem of having the side characters like Maes Hughes and background folks still played by Japanese actors. It wouldn't be too dissimilar a situation to having Aang, Katana, and Sokka played by white kids in The Last Airbender, but still have the people of the Southern Water Tribe played notably by Inuit and minority extras. It'd be ridiculous and noticeable.

    Barring the Ishbalan/Xingese characters, either go full Japanese/Asian or go fill white, but to mix and match is just a half measure. Logistically speaking, it would've been extremely difficult for this movie to go full-on white actors and still have everyone inexplicably speak Japanese seeing how it's aimed squarely at a Japanese audience/theatrical release.

    At any rate, earlier someone mention where the Germans at and my answer to that question is, the world of FMA is NOT Germany nor is it even set in our reality (in spite of the interdimensional Nazi Germany craziness of the first anime). Despite the trappings of a pre Nazi Germany analogue, there are no "Germans" in the world of FMA. Who's to say the people of Amestris can't have physical Asian features and speak Japanese?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    31,180
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +11,725
    Yeah, I agree on most points. Though when I said Greed was an outcast, I was actually referring more to the original Greed in the first series. Afterall, he was locked up by Dante for what? Several hundred years and put into some kind of a deep sleep? I think it was for punishment for disobeying Dante? I forget. Aw hell, now I gotta watch it again :lol  In Brotherhood, he outcasted himself from the group and made his own little clique. He didn't want to go along with "Father's" plans and wanted to do his own thing, so yeah I agree, in Brotherhood, he was more of a lonely (or loner) type of character.

    Well...I think it could work if they mixed and matched and found corresponding actors to play their corresponding characters. Like Ed wouldn't Japanese, and Mustang wouldn't necessarily be white either. The way they drew him, he looked more Asian (maybe Korean or Japanese?). So did Maes, but with Maes...he could go either way. Winry was definitely a blonde European, The Xingese were obviously an homage to Chinese folk, and Ishvalans would probably be some middle eastern/ Indian ethnicity, etc etc. Now the only thing is....to make sure they all spoke the same language because in FMA, all of them spoke the same language :D  But I get what you're saying about the correlation between their world (fantasy) and ours (reality). However, much of what they drew upon came from our world. I think it could work if some more thought was put into casting and writing. But that's just my thinking out loud.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Spartan0996

    Spartan0996 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +37
    I remember Edward making a jab at Ling for having "funny eyes" or something like that. I agree with you though, it doesn't really matter what race they are. I mean, Ed and Al are like "European"-ish and some kind of blonde/albino, yellow eyed, middle eastern race that doesn't exist, good luck putting that on a Japanese casting sheet :p 
     
  9. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,308
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,670
    Those aren't really the best images of Barry. But when you're watching Barry fight himself, the soul in the armor with the body, they're both just as big. He looks fat in that armor too. Maybe not as fat as the actual Gluttony but still pretty damn big. Could always have him continue to gain weight and have his hair fall out till he does end up looking like the official Gluttony cause there isn't really that much of a difference between them.

    Ling would have to die in my version cause Homunculus are humans without souls. Lings soul can't still be inside Greed the way he was in Brotherhood cause it would contradict the origins I prefer from the original anime. This also means that Ling's personality would not be rubbing off on Greed the way it happened in Brotherhood since they would never share a body like that.

    Oh and to clear things up because I think we're talking about Greed in two different ways. Greed 1, referring to the original body of Greed in Brotherhood wasn't there any longer than he was in the original anime. Most of his character development comes from Greed 2, when that personality was sharing Ling's body. You seem to be referring to Greed 1 as the personality of Greed regardless of which body he's inhabiting. Which would explain why you seem to think he lasted longer in Brotherhood cause technically he did but at the same time Greed 2 never really felt like the same character as the first Greed.

    1. Yeah, if you're flat chested and muscular your chest is going to look like that no matter what your gender is. You don't seem to be understanding the fact that not all women have breasts. Girls aren't born with breasts already. They start out flat chested and only develop breasts during puberty. That is most girls develop during puberty, some will continue to look like boys till their first pregnancy. The chest is not always the best way to identify gender.

    2. Actually it depends on the series. If the voice cast is terrible then of course it's going to sound terrible. But Full Metal Alchemist is really well dubbed with a great cast. I can't stand to watch anything with subtitles because I have to constantly pause and play and I can't pay attention to the animation while I'm trying to read at the same time. If I want to read I'll pick up a book like Hitchhiker's Guide, Dirk Gently, Shada, or the Covenant of Primus cause then I can read at my own pace.

    Plus I hate when it puts text from two different characters on the screen at the same time cause then I don't know who said what. They try to color code it to the character but that doesn't really help me. I freaking hate subtitles. The only way I'm going to watch an Anime in Japanese is if I freaking learn to speak and understand Japanese, which at my age is probably never. Maybe if I learned as a child when it was a lot easier to pick up a second language but not as an adult.

    When I'm watching something I just want to be able to sit back, relax, and enjoy whatever it is I'm watching not feel like I'm back in school doing work. The only time I can read and actually enjoy it is when the words aren't moving as I'm trying to read them. I can enjoy a book but subtitles are just annoying and painfully difficult.

    Frustration is a form of wrath. Frustration, anger, rage, wrath, they're all the same thing. It's unchecked aggression that causes a person to lash out with that emotion.

    Of course everyone feels this way some times but the part that actually makes it wrath is when your emotions have control over you not the other way around. Bradly certainly had his anger but he was always in control, not the emotion. I would think someone who is suppose to be the embodiment of that uncontrolled emotion would be exactly that, uncontrolled anger. Having him in control of his anger is not what Wrath is about.

    To put it into perspective using the other sins. Lust is the sin of sex, but that doesn't mean that all sex is lust, if you're actually in love, that's not lust. Gluttony is the sin of eating but that's not to say you should starve yourself, it's OVER EATING that makes it turn into Gluttony. Greed is the sin of want or desire of material things, which again is ok in moderation, but hoarding things just to have things is what makes it turn into Greed. Sloth is lazyness, you can relax some time times, you don't need to be constantly working but you can't be just sitting around never doing anything either. Now you apply that same thing to Wrath, the sin of anger, calm, calculated, in control is not Wrath. Wrath is pure unchecked, uncontrolled anger. I'm sure you have seen people who are in control but that's not wrath. Everyone experiences anger some times, it's a normal human emotion, you can't avoid it. That's impossible. To say that all forms of anger are wrath is unrealistic. And every other sin is more about having an excess of something not knowing how to take things in moderation. Simply feeling angry isn't in itself Wrath. Wrath is only when the emotion of anger controls your actions, it's raw unchecked, uncontrolled anger that becomes Wrath. You can not be calm and calculating when you're under the influence of Wrath, that's like having Lust experience real love, having gluttony go on a diet, making Sloth work full time, having Greed give things to charity. Calm is the completely opposite of Wrath. You can't have calm and be Wrathful.

    Also, wasn't boastful about it? He would talk constantly while fighting bragging about how good he was, talking down to his opponent that they could never beat him, that is most certainly boastful. Having that much confidence in your skills as a fighter than you basically claim victory before the fight has even started which is exactly what Bradly did every time, that's Pride. It's ok to be confident but you gotta have doubt too to balance it out, to recognize that you're not going to always be the best at something. Confidence turns to Pride when you have no doubt and Bradly is certainly that considering how he thought he could never lose. He would call victory in a fight before he even pulled out his sword. That is Pride right there.

    As I explained above Wrath does have to be inconsolable rage because that's what makes it wrath. Just showing anger isn't wrath. Everyone at some point will experience anger. It's not realistic to say all anger is Wrath. Just like the other sins, it's only when you have an excess of something that it becomes a sin. Anger isn't wrath until you let yourself become consumed by it. Bradly got angry yes, but never to to the point where it became Wrath.

    And Bradly was boastful in both series. His attitude, his personality, his fighting style, his ability with that mark on his eye, was all the same. The only thing that changed was the name and origin.

    The kid actually changed more than he did because in the original anime, Bradly's son wasn't a Homunculi, he was just a normal little boy. I think if I remember right, he was actually the son of the real Bradly, as in the original human version that Pride was made from. The remains of human/real King Bradly were kept in a safe. However once the location of his remains became compromised and their weakness was known, Pride tried to have his son move the remains to another location without letting him know what was actually inside. The kid misunderstood what he was suppose to do and ended up bringing the remains to Pride which weakened him to the point where Ed could kill him.

    In Brotherhood the son who was a normal human before is Pride and Bradly is Wrath. And he is also the real Bradly not an artificial copy like in the first anime. He was raised to be a ruler and there were others as part of the experiment but Bradly was the only one who survived becoming Wrath. He was basically created similar to Greed2 in that they were both humans originally who became Homunculus while others where never originally human. That's also why I prefer the original anime btw, I like the fact that the origins are consistent to all the Homunculus. I also like how they have a clear weakness as apposed to Brotherhood where I'm still not entirely sure what actually killed them...

    Or maybe not what that's not quite the right word, the what is kinda obvious, but exactly how did it kill them? Like Lust for example, Mustang burned her multiple times and she just kept regenerating over and over again but then suddenly burning her actually worked and I was never sure why it worked that last time when it failed multiple times before. Like what made that last time different than the previous times she was burned? It just seemed kinda random. And also the way they did isn't consistent either because what works to kill one doesn't work on others. In the original anime they all die the same way, they're basically immortal unless you get them near the remains of the person they were created from. Proximity to such things make them weaker and able to be killed.
     
  10. Spartan0996

    Spartan0996 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    122
    Likes:
    +37
    They died because regenerating over and over again used up all the souls in their philosopher stones. Father says something like that to Gluttony when he dies the first time.
     
  11. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    31,180
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +11,725
    Well yeah. If you write him in with an uncontrollable appetite, anyone can get fat :lol  But then again, he's supposed to be a homunculus. Their biology/physiology would be drastically different from that of a human, so I'm not sure him eating like a pig would do it.

    Yeah, but then that means Greed wouldn't be able to take over Ling to begin with. In Brotherhood, humans can be turned into homunculus simply by having the Father inject part of his philosopher's stone into a live subject. And so as long as the person is able to "accept" it without dying, wa-la! However, with the original anime, homunculus were always created from failed human transmutation, ie trying to bring someone back to life. You couldn't have two separate entities like that if you're preferring the original anime's version of the homunculus. However, I just thought of a way it could work out. Like you said, Ling dies. His bodyguard Lan Fan discovers the alchemy of human transmutation and tries to bring him back to life (not knowing it's a taboo). She can lose her arm (as she did in Brotherhood), and Ling turns into a homunculus that is "saved" by Dante. Dante who feeds him those crystals (I think those were philosopher stone fragments), and thus he turns INTO Greed :)  Or something along those lines...

    Oh my bad. I guess I didn't convey my thoughts properly. No, I know both are different. It's just from my memory of watching the original Greed, let's use your label, Greed 1, he was an outcast basically jailed by Dante because he disobeyed her or rather rebelled against her because of his avarice. Due to that, I don't think there was much of a development for him, so for me he wasn't "memorable." From what I can recall, his motive for kidnapping Al was the same. He wanted to be bonded to a suit of armor thinking he'd achieve "true immortality," but his story was short lived. In Brotherhood, Greed 2 had the same goal, but his story was much more longer lasting to me. Yeah, "Father" captured him, and he died in that melting pot. Or rather he was assimilated back into "Father." Then reborn supposedly with his memories wiped after being injected into Ling. But he regained it when that lizard boy was killed and Ling questioned his avarice. Greed lasted all the way to the final episode and the way he was, the way he went out, made him more memorable to me. I guess that's why it seemed his story in Brotherhood seemed much longer than Greed 1's in the original anime. Greed 2's personality seemed to me to embody more of the "sin" than Greed 1. And you're right. Greed 1 didn't seem like the same as Greed 2, but I think that went the same for practically almost every character from the 2003 anime to the 2009 anime.

    No, I understand that very well. Envy does not look like an individual who's pre pubescent. Remember, he's a shape shifter. Or....rather I should say "it" if I were referring to the Brotherhood version. It would seem that you're forgetting that the character has always been male in the 2003 anime, especially when it was revealed that he was the failed transmutation of Hohenheim's son. Never once has he ever been female. Unless of course, you want to count him shape shifting into the Lieutenant Ross (sans mole) or Hughes' wife. Now in Brotherhood, he was more or less genderless. That's why I said "it" earlier in this paragraph.

    To be honest, I own the blu ray of Brotherhood, and I tried watching it in English dub. I couldn't stand it. There's just that difference in enunciation and how the words are spoken (inflection?) that just don't ever match the tone of the conversation/exchange that the original Japanese writers had intended. It may be a cultural thing, but I've found this to be the same for all anime. Hell I use Robotech as a comparison. I loved that show, and to this day think that's probably the best dubbing attempt ever. All other anime...yikes. Yeah no. It just doesn't work for me. I've watched French films, Russian films, Hong Kong, and China films. All in their original language first, then tried the dubbed version. And the dubbed version just couldn't match how you felt when you were watching it subbed. It may work for some, but it never has worked for me. In fact, it almost feels like the "movie watching" experience is ruined watching a foreign film dubbed. Ok, maybe not that extreme, but it's just not the same. It does help that I can speed read the subtitles :lol 

    Sometimes, with certain fan subs (depending on who's doing it), it's not that bad. But again, it could because I can speed read the subtitles.

    To each their own I suppose. I can understand where you're coming from. We each have our preferences, but I prefer to hear the actual character's intended voice and tone in all their conversations/exchanges as meant by the original director/producer. In the case of FMA, the times where Ed gets upset with people calling him, "short" is comical and histerical at times. But I never got the same feeling of humor when I watched the same lines being spoken by the English voice actors. I dunno, maybe I'm just nit picky, but I can tell the difference, and I prefer it to be the original.

    No, it's not the same. It never has been. Frustration can be checked. Anger can be checked. Rage, usually is a result of anger not being checked. Wrath is when the anger is not checked, and it also forms a very deep resentful indignation. And in that, wrath can manifest itself in many different ways depending on the individual. It is not all the same, purely from a psychological standpoint. If it would help to imagine tiered system of "anger" as an emotion, Wrath would be on the top tier because it's usually defined with words such as "intense," "strong," or "extreme." Everything else you listed is below wrath, and is defined very clearly as being different from wrath. Especially since anger in and of itself can have varying levels of it, while wrath is just on the extreme side of things. There is no "mild wrath." Needless to say, they're separated by a fine line. For example, anger is a strong feeling of displeasure when they feel hurt or challenged. It's quite normal and natural. Unlike anger, Wrath is an extreme form of anger and it is destructive as well as vindictive. Destructive in that the person with the wrath can not only hurt others, but him/herself too. When someone feels anger, they are still aware of what is right and wrong. In wrath, people tend to lose their sense of morality and is overcome by hatred. But it doesn't mean they'll always go ballistic.

    Like I said with Timesynch, I kinda feel Bradley was shoe-horned into that role. The writers simply "explained" it with the line from "Father" saying "Will you be the one to receive my wrath?" shortly before they experimented with him in that one scene. In much the same way, the transmutated form of Tricia Elric really didn't seem like a lazy person when she became "Sloth" in the original series. But hey, he had to fit somewhere, and "Wrath" was the only place left for Bradley.

    Again, wrath can manifest itself in many forms. There are people out there that can be so angry with you, that instead of wailing on you with a flurry of punches and kicks while screaming obscenities, they can appear to be calm. But they're waiting on the right time in which they feel they can exact their revenge on you. That's right, they're waiting. They're not going to let YOU know when it's coming. Because they feel that the element of surprise and the look on your face when they do it, is that much more satisfying than just letting it explode out at that very moment. They won't listen to reason, they won't hear any of it, and their spirit of vengeance they obtained simply because their initial anger developed into an intense feeling of anger that turns into wrath is oftentimes not known unless you're their target. That's why wrath can be so "vindictive." You're basically only envisioning wrath as ONLY being one type, when that's further from the truth. And while lashing out may be one form of it, there are those whose wrath is something you'd never want to experience. And that's speaking from personal experience. There are some people out there that when you cross them, they can become some truly vindictive b**ches/assholes. Or dare I say worse? I've had friends who were mad at each other, and I never knew until they exacted their revenge on the other. I don't want to derail it with my own "stories," and if you still want to think wrath can only be displayed in one form, and one form only, then I hope you never meet that individual who will show you otherwise and make you re-think your definition of wrath.

    Or in short, make you say, "Gaaawwwwd....daaaamn...dude...was that even necessary?????" or the classical, "What....is....wrong....with you?" or (insert your own version of dismay and disapproval).

    No. Bradly while was arrogant about his stature in comparison to humans, he had nowhere near the contempt towards humans as Pride did. If any homunculus embodied what you're trying to describe Bradley as, it was Selim (Pride). Don't forget how he always said humans were of little consequence or no importance. Don't forget how he's always acting superior to humans (when he's not pretending to be a child). He more or less "honored" himself as being a homunculus at every given opportunity and always encouraged his siblings to feel contempt towards humans. He was even more arrogant than Bradley in battle. Even Envy described him as selfish and self-absorbed in at least one episode. His hubris is the reason why Envy dislikes him....and he's the only Homunculus that Envy doesn't like. We're talking about Envy here. Envy who, without any need of provocation or motivation from Pride, already has his own disdain for humans. In fact, Pride is so boastful that he even mocked his own siblings while putting them on the level of tools, object, or garbage in comparison to himself. Bradley...never did any of that.

    You're basically agreeing with me in part here. But yet you're still ignoring the very fact that wrath can, and has always manifested itself in different forms depending on the individual. I can only assume that you've never met anyone that was that good at hiding their emotions.

    But nowhere near as boastful as Selim (Pride). I mean for crying out loud, Selim showed his boastfulness without reserve as described above. Bradley was like a humble saint compared to Selim...unless he was talking about humans. Selim trashed everyone and felt everyone beneath him. Except "Father."

    No. You are wrong good sir. Selim had always been a homunculus that had a shell of a little boy in Brotherhood. Remember that episode where Colonel Mustang gave Madame Christmas a job to do? That job was to investigate who or what Selim was. This was spurned on by Hawkeye's cryptic message from before saying "Selim Bradley is Homunculus." You'll have to look up that episode where Hawkeye and Mustang were in the cafeteria, and Hawkeye signaled to Mustang with several taps of her pen to write things down. They had a convo, and later Mustang went to the bathroom and circled the first letter of every sentence or something. Madame Christmas reported to Mustang that Bradley's family background had a lot of things that didn't make sense, and even showed a very very old picture of Selim that would suggest Selim should NOT be a child in their current date and time. Pride was the first homunculus that the dwarf in the flask separated from himself/itself. And it was also revealed early on I believe, that Selim was "adopted," and not a biological descendant of Bradley.

    :lol  Dude...I'm sorry and I don't mean any offense by this, but it doesn't sound like you were paying close attention to the story line in Brotherhood. Either that or you really have to try to watch the Japanese dubbed with English subtitles if the English dubbed version didn't have the adequate translation to explain it. The reason why Mustang had to burn Lust so many times is because the philosopher stone is like a battery in Brotherhood. After so many usages, it runs out. I honestly thought that was clear when they showed how most of the homunculus died. Do you remember that battle that Selim and Gluttony had in that area of the woods where Al, and the two Chimera along with Ling and Lan Fan and Fu (both who showed up later in the fight)? Gluttony was getting his ass beat 12 ways from Sunday by Greeling and Lan Fan. When he later met up with Pride (primarily because he was trying to get away from Ling and Lan Fan), he was in horrid shape. So beat up (as if Selim wasn't beat up himself), that Selim took advantage of that and ate Gluttony so that he himself could regenerate or recover and continue the fight. But as we all know, that really didn't help him because towards the end in the final fight, the skin on his face was flaking off, indicating his power was "running out." And he did try to take over Ed's body so that he could have a new "shell" (thanks to Kimblee, that didn't happen). Also don't forget that Envy was the same. Mustang realized that the philosopher's stone within the homunculi would run out, but he was so bent on vengeance for Hughes' death (his own wrath if you will), that he took a sick pleasure in torturing Envy in the underground catacombs. Mustang burned Envy repeatedly in a much worse fashion than he did with Lust. Let's also not forget how Sloth died. If you watch the fight scene between him, Major Armstrong, General Armstrong, and later on, Mr and Mrs Curtis...you'll see the same thing happening. And let's not forget Bradley. Sliced in the eye by Greeling, shot by one of the Brigg's soldiers, and then beat up by Scar. His arms transmuted off of him....yeah. He didn't have much power left to regenerate (if he ever could). His looks faded and he expired before Lan Fan could take vengeance for Fu's death. After so many uses of the stone to regenerate...the homunculus run out of "power" and die. That was the "weakness" if you can to even call it as such. And it was consistent across the board. The only thing that wasn't consistent in the homunculus' death, was how Greed died. His philosopher's stone wasn't depleted like his siblings. Greed was killed when "Father" ripped him out of himself by yanking Greed out of his mouth, and let him fade into the sky. Greed had no philosopher's stone in him at that point because "Father" absorbed it for himself. But yet another example of the theory of depletion was the "Father" himself. If you remember what happened to him after Greed turned him into the weakest form of carbon (and that was after all that shelling and other various attacks which forced him to use up most of his philosopher's stone), and then Ed punching a gaping hole in his torso. All that would show that once the homunculi run out of juice, they're done. Again, I'm not trying to insult or anything, but embarrassingly, I have to admit I've watched Brotherhood many times along with the original series...and now thanks to this discussion, I have an urge to watch them again :lol  Admittedly, it's one of my more favorite anime, if not the favorite.

    But like you said, the original series had a much more powerful weakness that could be used against them. Their original bones was their "kryptonite." So in both series, both causes of death were consistent and clearly outlined. :) 
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
  12. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,308
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,670
    Not take over Ling no, it would be that Greed is created from trying to resurrect the dead Ling as you said.

    Also there is no Dante. As I said in my original post, the Dante/Father role is filled by an original character with vastly different goals than the two of them. It seemed that Dante and her Homunculus wanted to become more human rather than pale imitations of people. Father was trying to become a God. My character wanted to rid his body of pain but instead ended up riding himself of a body. The body which became the first Homunculus would go onto continue to rid himself of pain but without a soul he doesn't care about who he has to hurt or kill to accomplish his task. Some day the soul and body might join together as one again but the Homunculi won't let that happen until he can no longer feel pain. The soul now bonded to a state alchemist watch is without pain cause he has no nerve endings with which to feel anything but he also can't feel pleasure either. He wants his body back, he doesn't want the pain back but he isn't willing to kill people to get what he wants. He is however basically using Ed and Al in this universe to track down his body cause he can't do it himself. And he doesn't realize that the reason his body always knows he's coming is because part of Pride's job as King Bradly is to keep the soul and body from ever coming into contact with each other. Ed and Al can slip in cause he's not really worried about two kids and Sloth can distract them if they get too be a problem. But once the soul knows that Bradly can't be trusted, as Ed and Al figure out who he really is, then the Soul can track down his body without Pride warning the body he's on his way.

    I always end up naming fictional characters I made up Donald James Hansen. Though it's a little more complicated and confusing as to which one I'm talking about when he's technically two characters. A state alchemist who's soul is bonded to his watch and the first homunculi. I never really decided what kind of title to give him as State Alchemists always have an alias like Ed being the Full Metal Alchemist. And I'm not sure what to call the Homunculi version of him other than the Body of Pain. But this original character takes the place of Dante and Father in my version of the story. Though now that I think about it both Dante and Father had a connection to Van. It was way more obvious with Father considering he looked exactly like Van. Not so obvious that there was a connection in the original anime between Van and Dante but if I remember right, Envy was only a half brother to Ed and Al, same father but Dante was the mother. So that was their connection, that Van and Dante were Envy's parents. So I guess my character needs to have some sort of past connection to Van as well... That seems to be the only thing Dante and Father have in common besides being the leaders of the Homunculus is that that they both have a past history with the Elric Brother's father. I haven't really worked that part out.

    I think you're still getting the different incarnations of Greed mixed up.

    The 2003 version or the original Anime version is just Greed. There was never any other Greed in that series so no need to differentiate him.

    Brotherhood, had two Greeds, Greed1 who is pretty much the exact same character as the original anime. Same design, portrayed the same way, and they both die almost immediately after being introduced. Their origins are different and the way they die is different. Original Greed being killed by Ed and that Greed basically committed suicide because he intentionally brought his remains to the fight and wanted Ed to kill him. It's because of that fight with Greed that Ed learned how to kill the others. In Brotherhood, Greed1 was put into that melting pot and absorbed back into Father. He's not really more memorable than the original Green. He didn't really last longer because they both died after about two episodes.

    Greed2 is Ling and this is the version of Greed that is the most memorable and lasted the longest. He's also exclusive to Brotherhood. There isn't really a counterpart in the original anime because Ling was never in that series.

    You could say that Greed1 and Greed2 are the same character just in a different body but as you said he was suppose to have his memories wiped before he was put into Ling's body. I'm not refer to Greed1 as original anime and Greed2 as Brotherhood. Both Greed1 and Greed2 are from Brotherhood.

    Basically...

    This is Greed from the original Anime and Greed1 from Brotherhood.

    [​IMG]

    This is Greed 2 who is exclusive to Brotherhood.

    [​IMG]

    When I say Greed1 and Greed2 I'm comparing the two versions of Greed from Brotherhood. His original incarnation to the Ling incarnation.

    You could technically say that there are four different characters that we're talking about here and it gets really confusing as to who we're actually referring to when they share the same names.

    Greed: 2003 original Anime.

    Greed1: Brotherhood incarnation very similar to the original.

    Ling: The human who would later become the second incarnation of Greed in Brotherhood. And when he is Greed, the part of him that is still human if that makes any sense.

    Greed2: The second incarnation of Greed who seems to be a completely different personality from both Ling and the first Greed.

    Greed1 did not last longer than his 2003 counterpart unless you're counting Greed2 as the same character which I don't. Greed 2 is the version who actually lasted a lot longer and was more memorable which is why I choose to base my version of Greed on him. I prefer the design of the other Greed as it appears in both Animes but he's not a very well developed character in either version as that body dies after about two episodes in both versions. Greedling had more of a character arc and is the only version of the character who doesn't immediately die.

    Man I wish there was an easier way to talk about these characters that wasn't so freaking confusing.

    Also just so you know, I didn't make up the whole Greed1, Greed2 thing. I saw them listed that way on Behindthevoiceactors.com. I think IMDB credits the characters that way as well. It's Brotherhood's official way of differentiating the two versions of the character in the series.

    I'm not forgetting, I mentioned that from the start. I'm just saying that my version of the character is female. Officially yes, Envy has always been male. Also I don't recall Envy ever being referred to as genderless but being a shape shifter who can be male or female "it" makes more sense. I would insist that you use more gender neutral pronouns than simply "it" such as hu, hum, or hus depending on the context but that's derived from the word human which Envy is not so "it" is fine.

    "To be honest, I own the blu ray of Brotherhood, and I tried watching it in English dub. I couldn't stand it. There's just that difference in enunciation and how the words are spoken (inflection?) that just don't ever match the tone of the conversation/exchange that the original Japanese writers had intended. It may be a cultural thing, but I've found this to be the same for all anime. Hell I use Robotech as a comparison. I loved that show, and to this day think that's probably the best dubbing attempt ever. All other anime...yikes. Yeah no. It just doesn't work for me. I've watched French films, Russian films, Hong Kong, and China films. All in their original language first, then tried the dubbed version. And the dubbed version just couldn't match how you felt when you were watching it subbed. It may work for some, but it never has worked for me. In fact, it almost feels like the "movie watching" experience is ruined watching a foreign film dubbed. Ok, maybe not that extreme, but it's just not the same. It does help that I can speed read the subtitles :lol "

    Maybe you should try watching the dub first and then the original with subtitles? I don't really get how listening to the Japanese sounds better if you're still reading subtitles. You can't actually understand what the hell they're saying.

    I did actually try to watch a few episodes of Brotherhood with subtitles because as I said before that series was still being dubbed at the time but there were subs out online already. There were also some pretty long ass breaks between seasons where it felt like I was waiting forever. So I forget the episode title but I believe it's the first time we actually see Ed and Al's father in Brotherhood, I watched that episode for the first time in Japanese with subtitles and I hated it. It was a chore just to get through that one episode. It wasn't so bad in the beginning, just Van sitting around a camp fire talking to himself, and I could actually keep up with the text during that scene cause it was kind of a slow scene. But then a little while after that I found myself having to pause the video and go back so I finish reading a conversation that passed by. A couple giant walls of text where I was trying to figure out who said what. And any time there was an action scene I'd have to watch it twice, once to real the text and once so I could actually watch what was happening. The show is only like 15 minutes per episode and it took me a full half an hour to watch it.

    And yeah I've heard some horrible English dubs, mainly from Omni Productions dubs of the Japanese Transformers cartoons. I can not stand to watch those things. They sound like terrible fan dubs made by people who sound nothing like the original voice actors and none of them know how to act. If every English dub sounded like that garbage than I'd agree with you but most English dubs aren't anywhere near that bad.

    And that one episode of Brotherhood, from what I saw the English version is exactly the same as the Japanese except I can actually understand the English version and I don't have to pause or rewind it every five-ten minutes.

    I think you're just being nitpicky because it's comical in the American version too.

    I know all of this, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. Except for that last sentence which contradicts everything else you just said.

    You said it yourself, there is no "mild wrath" so why do you also insist that you can be calm and still be Wrath. Calm and angry is mild which as you just said is not Wrath. Wrath is going ballistic.

    If you're calm then you are able to think about about your actions before you do anything. People tend to lose their sense of morality when overcome by anger because they're no longer thinking clearly, they're not calm, that's when Wrath kicks in.

    That's not Wrath though. I've experienced both. Being so mad at someone let doing nothing about it. I might do something eventually but that doesn't mean I'm intentionally waiting for the right moment as you seem to think. That's me realizing that it's not worth seeking revenge. Even though I might some times fantasize about it... OK a lot more than some times, I think about it a lot... but that doesn't mean I'm going to act on anything.

    Let me fill you in on a little history here. Growing up, people have often commented how I never seem to get angry. I was bullied a lot in school but never actually fought back. No one ever realized how pissed off I actually was because I never showed it. This one kid, because of him it hurts to breath, he punched me right in the middle of my chest, knocked the wind out of me and I can not heal, that was in 6th grade, I was about 11 or 12 at the time, I'm 31 now and I still feel it as if it just happened. As I said before the character I created to replace Dante/Father is loosely based on myself cause the character like me in real life suffers from constant pain. I put up with that shit for years, not because I wasn't angry, I was, I wanted to kill that kid, but I realized if I retaliate against people like that then I'd be just as bad as them.

    The few times that I have actually fought back, I wasn't thinking. I almost died and went ballistic cussing and attacking anything that got in my way. It's those moments the ones where you're no longer in control, that is Wrath. You can not be calm and calculating when you're not in control of your own body.

    There's a difference between willfully plotting vengeance which is what you're describing and wrath which as you said before is an extreme level of hate and anger that is above everything else. You claimed that there is no mild wrath but calm calculated vengeance, if you want to define that as wrath as well, that is mild compared to real wrath.

    You can either say there are different levels of Wrath or that there is no mild wrath but you can't have it both ways. By your logic everything from irritated to pissed off is Wrath. If there is no mild wrath, if wrath must be an excess of emotion to even be called wrath than there can't be different variations of it, it has to be only one thing which is what I'm trying to get across to you. You seem to be arguing both sides that there are different levels and that it's only the top level. So which is it cause it can't be both?

    Envy never liked Greed either... though to be fair no one liked Greed hence his being outcast from the rest of the group. Other than that you actually make a good point, but he ate Gluttony... he had no issues with killing his own kind if they pissed him off. He didn't even think twice about it, he just did it without any warning.

    I think Wrath should be the most terrifying of the sins and Selim (Pride) is one scary ass fucker... when he's not pretending to be a normal child. That kid will mess you up.

    As I said above, I am that person. You're describing me and basically saying that I have never met myself. It's other people who look at me and think I never get angry, I do, I just don't act on it. Not only would I be just as bad as the person who pissed me off in the first place but I would likely end up getting hurt even more than I already am. Hiding my emotions is basically necessary for my own survival.

    Yes he was always a Homunculi in Brotherhood but that's not what I was talking about. I was comparing the 2003 version of Selim to Brotherhood's version of Selim/Pride.

    2003 Selim was never one of the Homunculus, he was just a real, normal little boy and the actual son of King Bradly. Not that series Pride/fake King Bradly, but the real King Bradly. This is getting confusing again. Basically there are two Bradlys, human Bradly fathered a child, his son Selim, and was at some point killed in battle. Someone, I don't think was ever said who, tried to use human transmutation to resurrect King Bradly. Homunculi Brady aka Pride took the place of the real King Bradly. I believe he actually said at one point that his family are not even aware that the real Bradly had been killed. I believe in that version, Mustang and Riza were friends with real Bradly before his death and helped him get to the position he's currently at in the series. They noticed his personality change after he became King but thought he was being stressed by the responsibilities of his new job. It was only later that they found out that the suddenly change in personality was because Bradly had been killed and replaced with Pride.

    It's only in Brotherhood that both Bradly and Selim are Homunculus. Except of course now Selim is Pride and Bradly is Wrath. In this version King Bradly never actually had a child. Selim was placed with him as an adopted son, he only played the part of a child but as you said was actually the oldest of the Homunculus. Well not including Father cause technically he's also a Homunculus which would make him the oldest, but Pride is the oldest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

    At one point in Brotherhood it's said that they can regenerate an infinite number of times which would suggest that their power can't be depleted. I believe with Lust, someone once told me this was explained better in the Manga, the reason was because Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate.

    And no it was not consistent.

    Envy shrank down to a tiny shriveled little green thing.

    Gluttony was eaten by Pride.

    Greed1 was absorbed back into Father.

    Lust was burned to death.

    Sloth also technically was never killed. They lead him out into the snow where he was frozen in place and he just gave up fighting.

    Wrath is really the only one who actually seemed to die the way you described.

    Pride also never died, he turned into a fetus and was given over to his adopted mother who you can see at the end of the series ended up raising him as a human child with no memory of being Pride.

    Someone also mentioned that the way each of them died had to do with the sin they were meant to represent which is why Gluttony was killed by being eaten. Though even that doesn't seem consistent cause Gluttony is the only one who's death has an obvious connection to his sin. Yeah I've had this same conversation before and someone else tried to tell me their deaths were really obvious too but if they're so obvious why do so many people interpret entirely different things out of the same anime?

    Nope, only in the original cause in brotherhood every one of them died a different way and not a single one of them was ever clearly explained why that method of killing them worked when others didn't. It seemed to be completely random. And you seem to have your own head cannon as to what happened that isn't actually in Brotherhood. Which is fine however you want to interpret that series that makes sense for you, go right ahead, but I've hear other people interpret that series different ways, if it was really as clear and consistent as you're claiming you'd all be telling me the same thing not three entirely different stories. With the original anime, everyone got the same message. Their remains are their weakness, there's nothing to debate. But with Brotherhood it seems more open to viewer interpretation. In some ways it's actually better to not have a clear answer cause it can lead to more interesting discussions about a property when everyone interprets the same story in a different way. But for me personally, in this particular instance, I just prefer the original anime. Some times I prefer a story to have one definitive interpretation.

    I think stories that should be left more ambiguous are stories that are intended to have some hidden message, that are designed with the intent of making the audience think about things in new and different ways. When a story is intended to have a clear definitive message then you can't leave things vague.

    Death Note I think is a better type of story for that kind of vague ambiguous story telling because the very concept of something like a Death Note existing at all poses some moral questions and with a story like that you're bound to have some disagreements about exactly who is the villain and who is the hero in the story, Light or L? But with something like Full Metal Alchemist you have very clearly defined heroes, clearly defined villains, so there isn't really much room to be vague.
     
  13. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    31,180
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +11,725
    No. I'm not getting them mixed up. If you really paid attention to the character of Greed, they are different between the two series. However in Brotherhood, the 2nd Greed was only one Greed. Him taking over Ling's body does not make him a second incarnation. It was made to only look like it was a second incarnation because "Father" couldn't stand how Greed 2 rebelled against him, so he supposedly destroyed him or broke him back down into a philosopher's stone and put him back into his own body as he drank the pinkish liquid out of that wine glass after that whole melting pot process. This was actually the first indication of what would have killed the homunculus. It wasn't just the hot molten liquid, but rather the forcing of the usage of the philosopher's stone in such a way that it causes the homunculus to weaken, thus allowing Greed to be broken down into his basic form from which he came from originally. A pink liquid as he was when he was originally created. "Father" tried to wipe out his memory, but he only served to repress it. Those memories were never gone, and I suspect it was due to his own avarice as it was shown as he screamed out in pain after killing lizard boy (I keep forgetting his name). In pain of losing something he cherished. He did attack Bradley after starting to recover those memories. A true second/different Greed in Brotherhood would have truly been different, and without those memories at all. All of the homunculus were more or less philosophers stones with an organic shell.

    Oh goodness don't even start that mess here.

    It doesn't matter if I watch the dubbed first or last. I wouldn't feel any different. It'd be like me talking to a native Japanese person and having a conversation, but instead of hearing their voice and how they say things, I'd be hearing someone else speak for them who has a different voice and a different way of saying the same things.

    Where was this version at? In the blu ray at least, I never saw any "giant walls of text." Nothing even remotely close to the walls of text we're putting up here :p 

    And I'm not gonna deny being nit picky about it. It's a personal preference after all. Just the same as you would prefer not reading it, I prefer to hear the original sound of the original voice actors so I can get the feel of what the director/producer wanted his/her audience to feel when the characters interacted with each other.

    No, the only contradictory statement here is what you just posted right here. You've been trying to say anger and wrath are one in the same etc etc. And I've been disagreeing with you because they all are not.

    No, wrath is not just going ballistic. As I stated before, wrath can manifest itself in many forms depending on the individual. While it very well can be a display of someone going ballistic, wrath is NOT limited to just that. You're over simplifying a very complex human emotion at it's extreme point. An emotion that can be very scary depending on the level it reaches. I'd like to say you should get out there and go meet various types of people with their various ways of coping with things (or lack thereof) so you can see what I'm saying to you, but then that'd be me wishing you to see some of the worst of humanity. And even then it's not that easy to see because again, some people hide their emotions well. You wouldn't even know they had feelings of wrath until they showed it. And before then...do they appear to be ballistic? No. Are they rageful? No. Are they vindictive? Oh yes! Very much so. People will show their emotions different depending on the individual. That is a fact that you seem to be ignoring in favor of lumping human emotions into a group where they're all one in the same when they're not.

    "Calm" is relative to how an individual presents themselves. They may not be thinking clearly or rationally, but if they have a motive/goal and they're hellbent on achieving that goal (say revenge), then they can hide their anger from their target of hatred until they feel it is the right moment to strike.

    See, there's the problem. You're described how YOU handle your emotions. But someone else may not do it the same way. In fact, there are a lot of people who don't do it your way. Everyone copes differently, and that's what I've been trying to say all along. It seems you're not getting it, and you're thinking way too linearly with this concept of wrath when it is anything but a linear concept.

    You're describing anger. Not wrath.

    You're describing one form of wrath.

    No. Wrath is wrath. That was the whole context of me saying there isn't a "mild wrath."

    No, you're not getting it. Again, wrath can manifest itself differently depending on the person. Never did I say there were varying levels of wrath, but I did clarify that there were varying levels of anger. And you don't seem to be able to differentiate between what I'm saying and what you may be trying to get me to agree with. Since we're on story time mode, let me share a story of my friend when I was in community college. Let's call her "Shelly." She had a boyfriend she loved. A boyfriend who wasn't someone her friends and I really thought was a good match due to his personality, and character. But she "loved" him, so be it. Long story short, he cheated on her. She was pissed. Shelly was always a vindictive person when you crossed her. But, she never went ballistic on anyone who did. She would always plot her own form of vengeance and it didn't always make sense. You can see the anger in her eyes welling up if she was talking about a specific person. But...you'd never know the extent because none of us was with her 24/7. Finally after about a year or two, her now ex boyfriend tried to talk to her again. Oh she took pleasure in messing with his head, emotionally torturing the guy. The more she did that, the more she showed just how seething her anger for him actually was. And it was apparent after a while that it wasn't just simply anger anymore. It was wrath. And she let him have it. Little by little, it developed into her berating him, belittling him in public, shaming him, embarrassing him, and then humiliating him after she made him think they'd be getting back together. And she NEVER cared once how it made her look. In her mind, it was justified. In her mind, she was vindicating herself from the wrong doing he committed against her over 2 years ago! But somehow she strung him along. And all the while, if you knew Shelly, she would have seemed calm. She definitely gave the appearance as such, unless you were her ex. Oh but she kept her anger in until the right moment alright. It was painfully clear she had plotted this all out never knowing if she'd really get the chance to be such a vindictive bitch. And before she exacted her "vengeance," any guy that reminded her of him even in the slightest, she treated them with a disdain that she never treated anyone else.

    The difference here between her and you? You used an example of yourself to lashing out. Her? The way she coped with the wrongdoing committed against her was more or less the embodiment of the saying, "Hell hath no fury..." nuff said, right? She wasn't the only one I've known to show their wrath in such manner. There was an ex-best bud that did something similar, but I dare say worse. Because he actually ended up committing assault and battery after mentally breaking down another individual. I say again, wrath can manifest itself in many forms. It is not limited to what you think it is.

    Looks like we're in agreement here. I think.

    No, I honestly think you're just using yourself as a model for your perspective of things, and then basing your points off of that. Which is understandable since even in psychology classes, it teaches us that our perspectives and what we see to be "truths" are generally molded from our own environments. Stepping outside our own environments however, can be a little different, difficult, etc depending on the person. Some folks out there are more than willing to hop on the first opportunity to do such, others more hesitant but they end up doing it sooner or later, and some outright refusing to do so. But that only serves to highlight my point in that people handle things differently. Which also highlights the point in that because of that fact, wrath does actually manifest itself differently depending on the person. I guess I'm not articulating that point well enough. Hell I took some courses taking a look into human behavior when I was majoring in psychology and it only had me scratching my head wondering "Wtf? Really?? That's how people justify shit?" I really wished I would have finished that course, but work obligations came in and I couldn't juggle school and work anymore. One of these days, I'm going to back to finish those courses of study. Hopefully.


    Ah ok. I misread that last paragraph I was responding to. My mistake. But not to nit pick...ok hell to nit pick, Selim was always an adopted child between the two series. You're right that in the original anime he was a human child (unfortunately strangled to death by Bradley), and in Brotherhood, he was the first homunculus that "Father" creat


    People interpreted things differently because they saw it differently. But it doesn't take away from the fact that it was even hinted early on as suggested here:



    Fast forward to about 1:17 where Bradley said "How many times do I have to kill you before you stay dead?" Prior to that he explained that with his "Ultimate eye" he saw Greed's weakness. This means he can see everyone's weakness regardless of what they are. When I first saw Brotherhood, I immediately got a sense that homunculus can die, and that they first must get weakened. Kinda like in the first series, but I had a feeling the accomplishment of that goal would be different in this story. I don't remember them saying that the homunculus could regenerate an infinite number of times. In fact I seem to have a feeling that they said the opposite. I'll have to go look for it. But let's take a look at this snippet here:



    As Ed calls out Greed at about 1:07 for telling him that he was not "immortal." If he was not immortal, then how could he possible regenerate an "infinite" number of times? That wouldn't make any sense. Being able to do so meant they can't be killed. Right? Because any damage would just be regenerated over and over and over again. But we've seen throughout the series that wasn't the case at all. And to even highlight that:



    Sloth surely didn't regenerate "infinitely"...and he was never "fixed" by "Father" like Gluttony was. Nor was he "reformed" like Greed was. He was beaten 12 ways from Sunday by Major Armstrong, General Armstrong and Mr, and Mrs. Curtis. And sorry, but you're only looking at the point in time where Sloth was frozen at Briggs. They weren't trying to kill him. They were trying to freeze him because they didn't know how to kill him. At least not yet. With Sloth's and Lust's death, you clearly see how the energy supply with their own philosopher's stone was used up. And then they died. Simple, right? So simply put, you can put 2 and 2 together and realize that all you would need to do is figure out a way to force them to use up that energy as supplied by the philosopher's stone within them. Once that happens...they can be killed or die. More on that in a bit. Good question on Envy. You see, with Envy, when it's philosopher's stone was more or less used up, it was weakened to the point where it was reduced back to what is referred to as it's "true form." That green ugly looking lworm thing. With legs. But this wasn't the first time Envy has it's philosopher's stone used up. Remember the scene in the snow area? Where he was being tricked by Dr. Marcoh and crew? Dr Marcoh was trying to kill him. Unfortunately, he didn't do enough to fully deplete his stone, and Envy turned into that green worm thing (his true form). They needed info from Envy, so it kinda worked out, but not really because Envy was just playing everyone for a fool. And, we all knew had Colonel Mustang NOT been stopped from applying that final burn he so very much wanted to do, then that final burst of flame would have used up the rest of the energy that the philosopher's stone had left in it, and he would have faded away just like Lust, and Sloth. Now here's where it gets interesting. Envy knew that by separating the philosopher's stone from it's body and crushing it would mean his death. It's death, is very similar to Greed's death. The first incarnation of Greed in Brotherhood was never killed, and nor was he meant to be killed. I thought that was apparent since they blatantly stated that Father was going to "reabsorb" him. Killing him would mean, he'd be gone. No more Greed. Period. However, after he was "reborn" (if you want to call it that), he does die because he was more or less torn apart from the philosopher's stone. You could probably surmise that when "Father" sucked him out of Ling in the final battle, he wanted to absorb the philosopher's stone that was within Greed. When Greed committed that betrayal by turning "Father" into the weakest form of carbon (that idea was thanks to Ed when they first fought at Devil's Nest), "Father" disposed of Greed by tearing him out of his own body (or mouth) thus separating him from any energy that the philosopher's stone would have supplied to Greed. That would have been no different than having the philosopher's stone used up. No energy, no homunculus. Plain and simple. No juice in the battery, you ain't changing no damned channels with your remote :p  However, just because they died in a different manner, does not mean that the same principal of weakness did not apply consistently to all homunculus in Brotherhood. Because they did apply. No juice, no homunculus. Period. As far as Pride was concerned, Ed wasn't trying to kill him. You have to remember that. Because if you ignore that, then...this conversation is pointless and we're only going to be going round and round like a merry-go round without any results. And just like Envy, once the philosopher's stone was used up to a certain point, Selim reverted back to his "true form."

    Now back to the using up of the philosopher's stone:



    We all know that the "Father" had an immense philosopher's stone in him that was initially powered by ALL of the souls of the people of Xerxes. Well...half of that because he gave the other half to Hohenheim. On a side note, Hohenheim could technically be a homunculus, but he himself referred to himself as a human embodiment of the philospher's stone. Anyway, back to the "Father." You see in the video, he's at the stage where he had already achieved "God" status and had the souls of all those in Amestris that were not in the "center" returned back to everyone. He was weakened, so he busted out trying to get more souls to create more of a powerful philosopher's stone within him. The more souls, the more power. The more power, the more "God-like" he was. The opposite would also be true. As you can see, Ed delivers the final blow by punching a hole into his torso. That releases all of the energy that "Father" had left within him (from the poor souls of Xerxes) thus depleting "Father" of any "juice in the battery." It wasn't so much that Ed's punch killed him. But more like the end results of what happened after the hole was punched into him. No more energy? No more "Father." It's not vague at all. The concept was much the same across the board. Of the ones that did die, the manner in which they died were different, but the cause of the death was the same. You can even apply that to Hohenheim. His philosopher's stone was used up, and I hope you remember what he looked like when he knelt in front of Tricia's grave, shortly before he died. In case you don't remember:



    Here's another example:

    Fullmetal Alchemist brotherhood (FMA) //The Last Fight (EPIC) // AMV

    If you can stop it at 3:01, you'll see that someone said, "Keep making him use up his philospher's stone!" At that point, the heroes of the show already figured out how to kill the homunculi. By making them use up their philosopher's stone. They applied that knowledge to the "Father."

    Lust's Death

    At 3:04ish, "How many times is it going to take?" And when she does fade...notice how the philosopher's stone fades too? Whenever the philosopher's stone is depleted from the energy that is supplied by all those human souls, that's what happens. The stone is more or less destroyed. It fades to dust just like the homunculus that it once powered, or gave life to. Remember Envy crushing the one that was inside it? It faded in the same way. Gluttony more or less died when Pride ate Gluttony and took whatever was left of Gluttony's philosophers stone as his own.

    And no, it is not my own head cannon as to what happened. What I'm describing IS what actually happened. If you had paid any attention to the things said in Brotherhood, how everything played out for what it was, then you'd see what I'm talking about. I really wish someone would have uploaded more snippets from Brotherhood on YouTube as I'm way too lazy to make some snippets of my own (and honestly, the effort isn't worth it since we're not like arguing about life and death here).

    But hey, instead let's take a look at the FMA wiki if you will:

    Homunculus

    So again, no. I can promise you I'm not imagining it. I'm also not "interpreting it in my own way." I'm basing these points on what actually occurred in the series. It seems more to me that you're refusing to acknowledge what actually happened in an attempt to interpret the series in your own way. Nothing was random. It was explained. If you were paying attention to what was being said throughout the series, you'd know that. Maybe it wasn't explained to your satisfaction of "HEY GAIZ! Just do this and it will work!" But the information was there. I never told you "three different stories," especially when it comes to how the homunculus were killed in Brotherhood. It is apparent to me with that statement, your seeming inability to actually see what was actually going on in Brotherhood applied to how you misinterpreted what I've been saying. It was never "open to viewer interpretation" because it was blatantly clear that if you depleted the stone, they die. Lust was the very first example of that. Greed came close to being the first, though it was hinted as I mentioned earlier. The fact that he didn't die was because "Father" wanted Greed captured at that time. Not killed. You have to be able to distinguish the motives and end results of each of their interactions with other characters here in what happened to and with each homunculus throughout the series. Especially in regards to their actual deaths. Why you're not doing that or maybe perhaps refusing to do that...I don't know. There was absolutely NO confusion whatsoever as to the consequences of the result of the stone being depleted. Period. Envy would have died too had Colonel Mustang depleted it's stone completely. But we all know Hawkeye and Ed stopped him by reasoning with him. Envy committed suicide by destroying it's own stone. Destroyed or depleted, it still means there's no energy or power to supply to the body of the homunculus. Therefore, it dies. Not that hard to figure out. And definitely not vague in my opinion. Pride would have died too, if Ed wanted it. But Ed stopped short of it, allowing Pride to survive because Ed wasn't one to kill. He'll knock people out silly, but he won't kill. Unless you're talking about "Father" then that's different. "Father" had to be killed in order to stop him from killing everyone else on the planet. If you're saying they have to blatantly spell it out for you from the get go (which takes away from the dramatic effect of having our heroes figure it out for themselves...which was exactly what they did!), then that's an issue of personal preference with the viewer. Not the story. A lot of fictional books are written in the same manner, so I can't understand why when applied to a cartoon, it'd be a problem unless again, we're employing personal preference.


    See, here you're applying personal preference. Dare I say you've been using your preferences as a blinder when interpreting what's going on? I may be incorrect in this assertion, but with what you've been saying so far, it would seem like you are. There's ALWAYS room for being vague to a certain extent. If done successfully, it can turn out to be a good story. Written poorly, and...well it's just gonna suck. And with FMA...I dare say they were successful, otherwise it would never have been a beloved franchise all over the world. You love it, I love it, almost everyone I know who has seen it loves it. Not everything has to be spelled out. Sometimes the authors want their readers/viewers to use their brains to think about what is being said/shown. They'll give hints. They'll show you tid bits of information. The author wants you to figure it out along side with the protagonists so as to provide an experience in either reading the story, or watching it. Call it the drama factor, or a sense of mystery if you will. Characters can be well defined, but situations are not always going to be so clear as it would be even in real life. If they were, then there'd be no need for any kind of mystery at any level.

    I'll just finish this actual wall of text ( :p  ) with this because I'm tired and woke up early to order exclusives from HTS. I need a nap dammit. I've watched FMA original and Brotherhood multiple times from start to finish. Why? Because I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything or misinterpreting anything. I love the series. And while I may not love it like others do who cosplay, and buy all the merch, I wanted to make sure I knew what was going on. Because honestly, I like talking to fellow fans about it. I try to take an objective look at each situation going on because I found the writing style of the author very intriguing. Not trying to say you're not being objective in your own right, but just saying how I approached viewing the series. When I like something, I'm going to try to understand it. The story, the style of writing, the characters...everything. I fell in love with FMA watching the original series, and thanks to a fellow board member here, I was introduced to Brotherhood years back. After watching it so many times, I can almost re-run the entire series in my head. But I'd rather just watch it again if I get bored because lord knows there ain't nothing but garbage on TV except for a few shows that I like and maybe football games when the season starts. And I refuse to get cable so...there's that. I don't like trying to put my own spin on things unless I'm asked to. I take things for what they are. If Al punched Ed because Al misunderstood why Ed was trying to get their bodies back, then I'm gonna call it out as such. I'm not going to try to add anything to it, nor take anything away from it. It is what it is. That's all.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2017
  14. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,308
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,670
    Yes it does because new body and no memory of his original. Remember he had no idea who Bido was even though Greed1 knew him quite well. Ling kept trying to remind Greed2 about his past as Greed1. Plus they're officially credited in the show as separate Greeds.

    Think of it like the Doctor's regenerations. They're all the Doctor but to help differentiate which version of the character we're talking about they all have a different number. It doesn't necessarily make them totally different characters even though their personalities can be different but it makes it less confusing to have some way of differentiating the different incarnations of the character. That's basically what we're doing with Greed.

    And this is why I think you're still confused because all that happened to Greed1. Greed2, the Ling incarnation, wasn't killed that way. He survived till the end of the series.

    That would be Bido, and yeah Father did succeed in making him forget but Ling eventually helped him to remember. You know come to think of it... this is actually really similar to Dinobot or A/E Starscream. Dinobot, Starscream, and Greed all die, they all get resurrected in new bodies with no memory of their previous life, and they all end up slowly remembering their past towards the end of the series.

    Yeah but I still don't get why it matters unless you can actually understand what the person is saying. In real life subtitles isn't really an option but a translator is. You kind of have to hear someone else talk unless you can understand their language. Of course if you could understand them then you wouldn't need it to be translated into English.

    The giant walls of text we're putting here wouldn't even fit on the screen. But there are moments when half the screen is covered in subtitles.

    It might also be because you can adjust the size of the font to adjust for your vision. I was watching online at watchcartoonsonline.com Pretty sure they were using about a size 14 text cause the default is usually set to 12 and it seemed quite a bit bigger.

    That's not a contradiction. Wrath is anger in the same way that Gluttony is eating. That's not to say that all anger is Wrath, that's what you've been saying. That's basically just over simplifying it but it doesn't contradict anything. But when you say that Wrath is like the top most extreme level on a scale claiming there is no mild Wrath and in the same post claim that there are different types of Wrath, then it becomes a contradiction because then you are claiming it's only an extreme and all forms of anger at the same time. I'm not the one claiming that all anger is Wrath, you are. I'm only saying that Wrath is a specific level of anger which we seem to agree on but your also disagreeing at the same time.

    Anger can manifest itself in many forms depending on the individual. I'm not over simplifying a very complex human emotion, you're over complicating it's extreme point to also include every single level below that extreme. When your talking about extremes you have to over simply it because that's the entire point of it being an extreme. Anger is a normal emotion with many different levels. Wrath is a excess of anger taken to the highest extreme. Anything short of actually going ballistic is not wrath.

    I have seen different levels of anger. That's not the point because we're not talking about a normal human emotion, we're talking about an extreme. Lumping it all together and saying it's all wrath is like saying anything short of being celibate your entire life is Lust. Anything short of starving yourself by your logic is Gluttony.

    The sins each represent an excess of something, an extreme. Wrath is anger but the highest extreme of anger, not all types of anger are Wrath. Being mad at someone but never showing it is not wrath. That shows control over your emotions, an ability to restrain yourself. You can't not ever get angry. That's impossible. If Wrath was was all anger as your suggesting then in order to not commit that sin you'd have to be incapable of feeling that emotion. That's why it's an extreme, and excess of something that makes it a sin. Wrath, is when you're no longer in control of your emotions, your anger is in control of you. What happens to a person when they reach this extreme, they go ballistic. It doesn't matter who you are, you could be the calmest most level headed person in the world normally but when you reach that level it doesn't matter, everyone looses control.

    There's a breaking point when anger turns to wrath, some people have a much lower breaking point some people are much higher, but once you reach that breaking point, the reaction is the same. Skilled fighters suddenly forget their training and lash out randomly, it is impossible to remain calm under the influence of the Wrath. You can be angry and still remain calm, but that's mild anger, that isn't wrath. Wrath is an extreme, it's a breaking point, it's a level of anger where everyone is the same. You said it yourself, there is no mild wrath. Anything short of loosing control and going ballistic is mild. They can not both be true, either their is no mild wrath in which case I'm right, or if your correct than all anger is wrath, by your logic even being mildly annoyed is Wrath because you're the one insisting there are different types of Wrath. You're trying to claim that it's an extreme which is what I've been saying, and not an extreme at the same time. It can't be both yet you're arguing for both.

    Wrong. Being calm means you're thinking clearly and rationally. If you're not thinking clearly or rationally you can not remain calm. One can not exist without the other.

    Except we're not talking about how different people cope with anger in different ways, we're talking about Wrath. We're talking about an extreme circumstance. As I said before, different people have different breaking points, mine happens to be much higher than most, but no matter who you are, once you reach that breaking point, Wrath is always going ballistic. Everyone has that breaking point where they will lose control and go ballistic. That is Wrath. Anything short of that is mild. Being calm, recognizing that you're angry and having control of how you handle it, that is not Wrath, that's not the extreme, that's just a normal human reaction. Wrath is losing control. It's impossible to lose control and be calm at the same time.

    I should be saying that to you because the whole point of that quote is that's what you've been claiming is Wrath. I never said that was anything but anger. But according to you, you have said multiple times that was a form of Wrath. In fact your entire argument has been based on that being Wrath. I've been trying to tell you that Wrath is only when you loose control of your anger and go ballistic not when you're calm and in control of your emotions.

    Right because wrath is an extreme which means there is only one form of Wrath, that's the whole point of it being an extreme. You are not describing different forms of Wrath, you're describing different forms of anger.

    Right, but that's my point because your entire argument is predicated on the idea that Wrath can be different things which would mean that there is a mild version of it. Anything that isn't going ballistic is mild. So how can you say that wrath is an extreme, that there is no mild wrath yet at the same time argue that there are different types of wrath. Both statements can not be true, they contradict each other. If there is no mild, if it is an extreme then only going ballistic can be Wrath. If there are different types of Wrath as you keep saying then there is such a thing as mild Wrath. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

    Oh I'm going to have to break this one down.

    "Never did I say there were varying levels of wrath"

    Yes you did, right here.

    "Again, wrath can manifest itself differently depending on the person."

    You said it in the sentence directly before claiming you never said it. In order for Wrath to manifest itself differently depending on the person this would require there to be varying levels of Wrath. These two statements are claiming the same thing they're just said in a different way, that there is more than one version of Wrath. But you're not talking about Wrath you're talking about anger.

    "And it was apparent after a while that it wasn't just simply anger anymore. It was wrath."

    Nope, still just anger. She had a perfectly normal human reaction to a terrible situation. Just because you seek vengeance, just because you enjoy it, doesn't mean it's wrath. If it was wrath she wouldn't be in control. You want to see a girl on Wrath after her boyfriend cheated on her. I once walked in two girls talking. One girl's boyfriend had just cheated on her I could tell she was upset and angry, and she spouted off "Men are ass holes" seemingly not even realizing that she also just insulted me. After she had a chance to calm down she apologized saying "Sorry, I didn't mean that towards you." That was wrath mode cause she was lashing out at everyone without even thinking about it. It's hard to direct your anger at the person you're really mad at when you're in Wrath mode.

    I've also been cheated on. Ex, invited another guy over to her apartment and started making out with him right in front of me. That was one of the few times I've actually showed my anger, also the most recent and that was about three or four years ago. Anyway I told her at the time that I never wanted to see her again, that I wanted nothing to do with her. Unfortunately at the time she was in a different country and I had no way of getting home till morning. That whole night I was in Wrath mode. I tried to calm down but the more she tried to defend herself the more pissed off I got. I wasn't even thinking about the kid who thankfully was in bed and didn't wake up while we were arguing and yelling at each other. It was about a month later when I finally calmed down enough to talk to her again. I'm still pissed about what happen that night but I did end up saying some things I didn't mean cause that little boy even though he's technically not mine, I still love him as if he was my own. I kind of have to put up with the cheating bitch in order to have visitation with the kid. It's not his fault what happened and his biological father already abandoned him, I'm the closest thing he has to a father, so I didn't mean it when I yelled at her saying I never wanted anything to do with her again. At the time I wasn't thinking what that meant for him I was too overcome with Wrath to be able to think clearly.

    That's anger not wrath. Wrath is one form of anger not all anger. It's anger that has many forms not wrath.

    Yes and no. Of course I'm going to use myself as a model for my perspective on things but I'm not ONLY using myself. Just for that instance because literally you're describing me and calling every single form of anger as Wrath. Wrath is an extreme example of anger not all anger. And I've seen it in other people too. People who have much lower breaking points. One of my friends in elementary school, broke both arms, one arm twice, another arm three times, and one time they were both broken at the same time because he kept getting into fights in school. He was bullied like me except unlike me he didn't hold anything back. He wasn't afraid to fight back. Got in trouble a lot even though he never started the fight but teachers didn't care who threw the first punch, didn't even really care that he went to the hospital while the other kid was mostly OK they still both ended up getting suspended from school. Never really understood that, I think only the bully should be punished not the victim. But according to the rules at least in my elementary school, if you're in a fight, you're in trouble regardless of who started it. Kids got in trouble simply for trying to defend themselves.

    What happened at the end of this quote, you seem to have have suddenly stopped writing in the middle of a thought. I know that last word should be created but you only wrote creat and then it cuts off.

    See here's what I mean about that being really vague. You saw that scene and interpreted things completely differently from how I did.

    When Wrath asks, "How many times do I have to kill you before you stay dead." You took it literally. I took it as a rhetorical question that Wrath already knows the answer to. Remember he isn't even the one to kill Greed as he never dies in this fight, he's brought to Father and absorbed back into him. When Wrath says that part about being able to see Greed's weakness, notice as he's saying it, that his swords are going through Greed's throat and his ultimate shield isn't activated to protect him. I think this is what he means by weakness, not as in a way to kill him but just in the sense that he can hurt him when his shield is down. Of course technically anyone can see that weakness, it's easy to see when he's got his ultimate shield on. Though to be fair, the shield covers his skin not his cloths so maybe Wrath can see the weak points regardless of weather or not they're covered by clothing where as other people can only see the weak points in his exposed skin. Plus I think Wrath is able to see a few seconds into the future with that eye allowing him to know the exact moment that Greed is going to let his shield down.

    Not necessarily... Humans can regenerate an infinite number of times but that doesn't mean they can't die. There are different levels of regeneration, a scratch healing is still regeneration even if it's not going to stop you from dying some day. Humans can't regenerate entire limbs, though some animals can do that, but they still aren't immortal. Regeneration doesn't = immortality. It's just an ability to heal damage while you remain alive. Though I suppose maybe the word infinite was a bit misleading cause if your life is finite than your healing can't really be infinite but the word immortal is also misleading. Vampires are immortal but they can still be killed. The thing is they will never die of old age. They can theoretically live forever but if there was ever anything that was truly immortal then it couldn't die no matter what you do to it. There can't really be any real immortals in fiction cause the writer needs some way for the hero to win.

    It's a pretty common practice in fiction for a writer to use such misleading words to make the villain sound unbeatable and exaggerate how powerful they actually are. But there's always some kind of weakness. And again, Greed never actually dies in this fight. Ed gains the upper hand and does some serious damage to Greed but it never kills him. Also this weakness that Ed talks about in this scene is specific to Greed cause no one else has an ultimate shield. Ed mentions that Greed can't heal and maintain his shield at the same time. Lust would not have this issue because she has no shield there's nothing stopping her from healing the way that Greed's shield stops him from being able to heal. No one except Greed has that weakness. This is what I mean about their weaknesses being inconsistent.

    OK now I feel like I need to watch Brotherhood again cause I don't remember that scene at all. The last time I remember seeing Sloth was when he was frozen at Briggs.

    Funny you should mention that... I use to have a tv remote, I no longer have that TV or that remote, this was back in school, but that thing was working for about two years with dead batteries. I found out they were dead because I needed the batteries for something else, took them out, they weren't working. Put them back in the remote, worked fine. Used a battery tester to see how much juice they had left and according to that they were completely dead. I used it with other batters and there was nothing wrong with the tester but that remote control was some how working perfectly fine with dead batteries. I have no explanation for how this is possible but for about two years after that I continued to use that remove never changed the batteries, and it always worked. It would stop working if you removed the batteries which is also weird cause if they're dead batteries then it shouldn't make a difference if they're in there or not. But they only worked inside that remote, if you tested them or put them inside of any other device they would come up as being dead. I still to this day have no clue how that damn thing worked when by all rights it shouldn't have.

    It is vague though and still inconsistent. It was said that the only way to create a Philosopher's Stone was for people to die. You see when Father dies that millions of souls leave his body, that's the power in the Philosopher's Stone being drained as you said... but you don't see this happen with any other death. There are no souls leaving Lust's body as she burns. There were no souls leaving Sloth's body in that clip you posted earlier. If human souls are the energy that powers every Philosopher's Stone, and every Homunculus has a Philosopher's Stone powering them, then every death should be the same as Father's was... maybe to a lesser extent as the Sins only had fractions of the stone that Father had but still there is no indication with the sins that their Stones are being drained of their power. It's obvious with Father's death that's what happened but only his death. Lust seemed to die because Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate not because of a drained battery. Even Sloths seemed kinda of random like he should if been able to pull that spike out and keep going. There's no clear indication of what actually kills them cause each death is completely different. It could work the way you're saying, there's certainly evidence of that but it's never clearly shown or explained to actually be the case. As I said, that's your interpretation and may not be entirely accurate with what the writers intended. I honestly have no clue what the intention was and probably will never know. I think only the writer can say for sure.

    It is your own head cannon though. I can see how you're interpreting it that way. Like I said before there is plenty of evidence to support it but that's not the the only way to interpret those scenes. If I remember right, Lust was the first one to die at the hands of a human. Mustang says "How many times is it going to take?" You seem to have interpreted that as he figured out how to kill her but depleting the stone but if he knows that the stone can be depleted if it's energy then why is that a question? If he said it as a definitive statement, sure but "how many times is it going to take" there's a lot of ways you can take that. It's the first time they've managed to kill a Homunculus, there's no way at that point in time that he could of known that would ever work. It seemed to me like if she didn't died he was going to keep that up as long as he could. He wasn't talking about depleting the stone here, at this point I don't think they even knew about the stones. He was actually just asking how many times do I have to kill you before you stay dead. For all he knew she was never going to stay dead but he was going to try anyway.

    That's how I interpreted it anyway... and that's the thing, when you say that's not your own head cannon, that's what actually happened, you're saying that there is only one possible way to interpret those scenes, your way. But your way may not actually be the right way. It is vague, it is open to different interpretations, no ever clearly says their stones are like batteries if they get used up they'll die. They do say they've figured out how to kill them but they never actually explain it. How did they figure it out? What is actually happening? If it's actually the same for all of them then why is every death completely different?

    I didn't say that YOU told three different stories. I said that I've had this conversation before with other people and they each had their own interpretation, three different people three different stories. And if it's not open to view interpretation, if it's blatantly clear then how did three different people come to three completely different interpretations? If it's so clear as you're making it out to be then everyone should of gotten the same exact message.

    Also as for the wiki, that's the interpretation of whoever wrote the wiki. That doesn't mean it's the writer's original intention. That's a fan page, from some random person like you or me, that doesn't make it official canon.

    And you've misinterpreted me multiple times in this conversation as well. There's been about three times where I've clearly referenced a character from one series or my own version of them and you've thought I was talking about a completely different version of the character. Insisting that Envy is male not female even though I clearly acknowledged that the official version has always been male. My version is female, I had to point that out about three different times before you finally caught onto it. Thinking that I was talking about Brotherhood Pride when I clearly referenced 2003 Selim. And I'm still not entirely convinced that you know what version of Greed I was referring to at any point in this conversation even though I've clearly said multiple times that Greed2 is Ling. Maybe we've gotten that mess straightened out but I really don't know. You expect me to believe that you managed to understand the writers intent in Brotherhood when you can't even understand what I'm saying half the time? You've acknowledged that you've misunderstood me so don't you think it's possible that you may have also misunderstood what was happening in Brotherhood?

    The only person refusing to acknowledge things here is you. I've responded to every bit of evidence you've thrown at me. I've acknowledged that yeah I can see why you might interpret it that way. But you, every time I've thrown something at you that contradicts your own beliefs you've ignored it. I've pointed out multiple times that every dead was different, no two deaths were the same but you refuse to even acknowledge that any contradictions to your interpretation exist.

    You claim that every death was the same, a depleted battery.

    With Father's death you can see the energy leave his body. That's the only time you ever see that.

    With Lust it looks like Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate, not draining her batter though you could interpret that way as well but again if that's the case then why does she just fade out of existence, you don't see the energy being depleted like you do with Father.

    Greed1 is simply absorbed back into Father.

    Gluttony is eaten by Pride. These two have nothing to do with a drained battery.

    Ect. ect. You still have not acknowledge if it's really consistent, if it's really this whole drained battery theory then why are they all different? Envy turns into a ugly green worm thing, this never happened to Lust. Pride turned into a fetus, this never happens to anyone else. I'm not talking about what killed them being different, I'm literally saying that result of the death or defeat is different for each character. If they all died the same way, from a depleted battery, then the animation and dialog should reflect that they're all the same. It doesn't. In the original anime they all die the same way, every death is the same, they get their remains, they become weak and can be killed. The cause and effect is the same for every character. It's consistent for all 7. In Brotherhood, there is no consistency, sure they say things that can be interpreted a certain way, your way, but there is just as much in the series contradicting that as there is supporting it. You're just choosing to ignore the parts that contradict you and cherry picking the evidence that supports your own beliefs. You keep openly refusing to acknowledge the fact that every death is unique, you're forcing your view that every death has something to do with a depleted battery as if there's no other way that it could possibly be anything different. I'm sorry but that is nothing more than your own opinion. It's not wrong exactly but if you insist on stating it as a fact it might as well be.

    No, the original anime didn't spell it out from the get go. The heroes had to figure it out, with some help from Greed. I never said anything about having to spell it out from the start. Just that it needs to be said at some point in the series. In the original anime when they find out their weakness it's clearly stated that they need the remains of the person they were created from. In Brotherhood when they figure it out it's not explained... ever... they just do it... It's completely random as every one dies an entirely different death, it makes me wander how the hell they figured it out, what they figured out, and when exactly did they figure it out? There's no sense of consistency with each death. I honestly don't think the writer even knew how he wanted to kill them and so left it open to interpretation.

    Again, that would be you. I don't really have a personal preference when it comes to Brotherhood as evidence by the fact that I'm able to recognize the contradicting information within the series while you cherry pick only the parts that support your own opinion.

    That's basically what I said. Though you put much more simply than I did.

    Not necessarily. Remember there are two... possibly three if you include the Manga though I've never read that... versions of Full Metal Alchemist. Some people might prefer one version over another, some may like parts from one version better and parts from another better. Remember at the beginning of this conversation it started because I was talking about my own version that blended what in my opinion are the best parts from both versions of the anime with a little bit of my own twist. FMA Isn't successful because of the vagueness that is Brotherhood. And I obviously hate that aspect of the story as I've said that I prefer the origins and deaths from the original anime. There are other aspects of Brotherhood that I do like, like I said, Sloth actually was a Sloth as apposed to Trisha who seemed shoehorned into that role in the original Anime. Though I like what the original anime was trying to do with Trisha/Sloth, Brotherhood Sloth was a much better representation of his sin. And I really like Greedling because there was much more of a character arch there than having Greed show up just to die.

    Just because you love something doesn't mean you can't find flaws within that thing. You can still love it even if there are aspects of it you don't like. So you see that one aspect of a series can be terrible and still not hurt the success of the series. It's just a matter of does the good, the parts you like outweigh the bad, the parts you don't like. In the case of FMA of course that's a yes, there is so much more good than bad in both these animes. You shouldn't let your love for something blind you to the bad parts though. That's how people end up in terrible relationships defending ass holes.
     
  15. Dark Skull

    Dark Skull Well-Known Enabler Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    31,180
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +11,725
    How and where were they credited as separate Greeds in the show? He didn't seemingly have any memory of Bido because "Father" tried to wipe it out. It was painfully obvious that it was repressed. Greed was "reformatted" to believe he was a separate entity than that of his previous self. It'd be no different than if you reloaded a windows operating system onto your harddrive. Even if you do that, you still have the same exact computer. It's not a different computer. However, you do have a fresh operating system on your harddrive that's been wiped clean of the old operating system. That's practically what Father was trying to do with Greed. The moment after Greed thrust his carbon armored right arm into Bido's stomach, he started remembering things. Having flashbacks. That's when Ling scolded him for killing one of his own comrades. Greed denied that Bido was a friend while shaking uncontrollably. Ling being inside Greed and therefore being able to SEE the flashbacks, questioned what's with the memories. Greed, being in denial, tried to say those were the last Greed's memories. Not his. That's when Ling asked, "Then why are you suffering so much?"Still in denial, Greed tried to say the "last Greed's soul had his memories wiped clean." Then he slips and says, "I've forgotten my whole past!" Right there. "I've?" Really? If it was a different Greed....well...put 2 and 2 together there and you get 22. Right? No. You can say that at this point, he's realizing something is wrong with him. That's when Ling confronts Greed, scolding him by saying "Friends are connected by their souls!" You can see this all happening at the end of episode 44 "Revving at Full Throttle." Of course, I was going off of the Subtitles as translated from the Japanese dialogue. But referring to yourself (when he said "I've") in English is no different than referring to yourself in Japanese.

    Man look at that. You made me pop in the blu ray to look that up!

    Actually, I think it's you who is confused. If you couldn't tell, "Father" asked Greed why he would betray his loving father. Greed had always been defiant in either series. It was also clear that Father wanted children that were obedient, thus him reformatting Greed into what he thought would be a "dutiful" son. Obviously, that didn't work out the way he wanted it to. I'd even be bold enough to say that you could get a feeling that he never really cared for his offspring. As with his conversation with The Truth at the end, where it was pointed out that Father tried to elevate himself above humans by removing the emotions from within himself. Those were things Father felt held him back from obtaining "perfection." And in part, that attitude passed onto Pride because Pride thought to elevate himself above his siblings...in his own mind. Greed never died when he was put into that melting pot.

    I wouldn't say helped. In my own words, I'd say Ling bitch slapped Greed with a dose of reality when he got annoyed with Greed for trying to deny who he really was. Again, the flashback bit. He was shaking. Greed was suffering, and couldn't immediately figure out why. If you really think about it, the human based homunculi were nothing but a philosopher's stone in an organic shell. Look what happened when Colonel Mustang ripped the stone out of Lust's chest. The artists that drew the scene purposely showed some flesh still attached to the stone. From those pieces of flesh, Lust regenerated. I'd imagine if no flesh were attached, Mustang would just have a stone, and Lust would have been killed then and there.

    Well, it could also be a learning tool too. You hear enough of the words, and sentence structures, and you can start grasping things here and there. To be honest, my parents and aunts and uncles are all amazed that I can speak Cantonese so fluently and hold conversations well with them whereas my older sister and brothers can't. I watched movies with subtitles. I learned. Simple as that.

    I don't recall any part of the blu ray having that problem. Were you watching a fan subbed version? Those can have those walls of text, and I'd agree those are annoying.

    Way to misinterpret my post there buddy. If you look back at what I said, and carefully re-read it, I said that Wrath is the most extreme form of anger. But that depending on the individual, they can show it differently! And yes you are saying all anger is Wrath. It was you yourself that conflated frustration, anger, and all the other negative emotions WITH wrath. And now you're taking MY words as your own and trying to put YOUR words in my mouth. Nah man. I'm not going to let you do that.

    Wait....

    You deny that you're oversimplifying something, then you go and oversimplify it. You realize that renders your argument invalid, right?

    Dude, I am having a hard time trying to understand your logic and how you even came to those conclusions. Nowhere did I lump anything together. You did. I'm noticing a disturbing pattern here.

    Again, taking my words and using it as your own while trying to put your words in my mouth.

    Here you go oversimplifying Wrath again. You might as well go ahead and say everyone is the same while you're at it. And do tell those who cope (or don't copt) differently in certain situations that how they're coping with it is wrong because it doesn't fit your model of what emotions should be. Because I'm sure your take on emotions will be well received.

    Dude....seriously. I'm not going to go breaking down human behavior anymore after this as if I'm writing a dissertation or something (though arguably, it would seem I have).

    No. No. No. No. No. Wrath is NOT always going ballistic. People handle themselves differently. They show their emotions differently, that's why there's such broad definitions and synonyms for each emotions to include the extremes. But when it reaches the extremes, there's still different ways in which it manifests itself depending on the person's ability to deal with it. Especially wrath. If you haven't had the displeasure of dealing with it first or second hand, then I can understand it. But when you have examples of vindictiveness/vengefulness that causes someone to go after another for a wrong committed to them, they're not always going to be raging and going ballistic. Going ballistic means you're suddenly excited, upset, or angry. Those who take a sick pleasure in being vindictive/vengeful to others don't usually just react right there on the spot. People with bad tempers do. If you honestly think everyone ever having wrath does, then you really need to get to know more people.

    My words were, "Wrath can manifest itself in different ways." Ways. Not THINGS.

    So according to your logic then, people handle things on different "levels" not "ways." Thanks for clarifying that. When I say that wrath can manifest it self DIFFERENTLY depending on the person. That does NOT mean, nor did it EVER mean, that it was on any kind of level. It's referring to the MANNER in which it is shown by the person. Not everyone is the same ya know...

    No. I'm talking about wrath.

    I don't think you have a clear understanding of the concept of anger and how people display it or hide it. And I guess you missed the part where I told you my friend "Shelly" did this: "And before she exacted her "vengeance," any guy that reminded her of him even in the slightest, she treated them with a disdain that she never treated anyone else." All of her behavior and mannerisms reflected the key descriptive things defined as wrath in dictionaries, or even shrinks.


    I found great synonyms for "wrath" on the new Thesaurus.com!

    Were you vengeful? No. You forgave her.

    What are characteristics of an angry person?

    Did you have malice? Somewhat. Did you have bitterness? Sure. But it sounds more like you were angry. I can't agree about the wrath part, but nice try in putting that in there to help make your point.

    wrath - Dictionary Definition

    And what punishment did you want to inflict on her? The lack of your presence? If she cheated on you, she may not have cared much since you mentioned she "defended" her act of infidelity. Surely if you had wrath, you did something to punish her, right? Where was your vindictfulness? You didn't describe any.


    Why does it feel your interaction times with others seem somewhat limited when you say that?


    The problem with that is, you're actively, and purposely ignoring the perspective of the author that wrote the story.

    Hell if I can remember. I went out to run some errands and do a bit of toy hunting then took a nap after waking up real early to order some Hascon stuff on HTS.

    Why wouldn't Wrath know the answer to that? Honestly if you listened to the Japanese dub, you'd get a sense that he was actually saying it rhetorically instead of being inquisitive. And that's all in the tone he spoke in. That's why I can't watch anything foreign dubbed in English. The inflection of the voice, the words, the way they're spoken kinda matters. I once actually wasted a lot of time watching an anime, rewinding, and switching back and forth between English audio and Japanese audio with English subtitles. There was a noticeable difference in the way things were being said. Try as they may, the English voice actors did ok, but there left some room for improvement if they were trying to match the emotions being displayed (or should be displayed) by the characters in various scenes. I've had some people tell me they think it's the "lost in translation" deal, but....I dunno.

    Wrath has a philosopher's stone within him JUST like the other homunculi. He would know that the only thing that can kill him or his siblings would be repeated damage to the point where the philosopher's stone is used up. Don't forget also, that he STILL held his own against Scar while being mortally wounded. What else could allow him to do that if not the philosopher's stone.


    And that's why Greed wanted to know how Ed bonded Al to the armor. Because Greed thought that was his ticket to immortality. He knew his life was bound by the duration of his philosopher's stone. But hey, if being bonded to armor removes the "human condition"...so to speak...then he wouldn't die. Or so he thought. I'm pretty sure he wasn't aware that if anyone scratched up the seal, he'd be dead too.

    But...you're just describing the different powers and abilities of the different homunucli there. The main weakness, the one I thought we were discussing, is the one that unequivocally leads to their death.


    Well if you forgot that, I really think you should watch the whole thing from start to finish.


    The reason why there were no souls leaving Lust's body was because the energy provided by all those souls were used up. *POOF* gone. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The Amestris people souls were still intact when they left the "Father." And for the most part whatever was left of the souls that haven't been used up of the people of Xerxes. And yeah, Mustang was burning Lust repeatedly. But you have understand that in doing so, he was forcing Lust to also repeatedly try to regenerate to stay alive. Key thing there. I don't think Mustang fully understood how GENIUS that was of him until afterwards. And to the point of what the writers intended, it was clear man. They didn't spell it out, but Lust was an example. It gave you a hint. Gluttony was beat all to hell, and Father had to "fix" him because Gluttony was rendered useless I believe, when Scar and the Princess escaped from their underground lair. Actually, Gluttony was reborn with his memory intact. The opposite of what happened to Greed. Greed was reborn without his memories intact...or so the "Father" thought. And then Gluttony fell under the same condition, fighting with Lan Fan and Greeling in the woods. Pride took advantage of that, but we already went over that part.



    Now with Mustang saying it as opposed to Bradley, Mustang said he was going to try to burn her to death, and keep going until he achieved his goal (like you said). It wasn't clear that he knew he had to deplete the stone. I think it was more an act of desperation...but a genius one. And of course, realizing that tactic killed Lust, you see him doing it to Envy later.

    This is how I saw it:

    Lust burned repeatedly. Suddenly she stops regenerating and dies. Why? How? The only logical conclusion is, repeated damage. Heavy damage. Like fire. Or repeated injury. They can only regenerate so much. Ok great. We know that now. But what powers that regeneration? Brotherhood showed us it was the philosopher's stone. So does that mean the philosopher's stone is limited in some ways? Yup. It was. Gluttony was another example. The best example would be that fight with Greeling and Lan Fan. He even whined about not being able to take much more, and suggested to Pride (who was also beat up) to go home to have "Father" "fix" them. The first time Gluttony was beaten so badly, he was beaten from within an inch of his life. He could have died if Scar stuck around and focused on him. But we'll never know that. Father absorbed Gluttony and recreated him with a brand new philosopher's stone inside him. Fully charged. Selim ate Gluttony. He took Gluttony's stone for his own. To me that's kinda like charging your cell phone battery less than half way to full. Though it did revive him somewhat, he wasn't "fixed" like Gluttony had been earlier. So with that "partial charge" and repeated fighting, you saw his "battery start to run out" leading into that last fight scene he had. Ok. So we have evidence that the stone is limited. Sloth would seal the deal on the evidence. From the damage he took at Briggs, to now his final scene at Central, he never was "recharged" so going on whatever he had left...our heroes (more than likely not even knowing this info) kept at it. And finally...being impaled on a spike Major Armstrong had created earlier, his "battery ran outta juice." He died.

    No, you've admitted to it yourself when you admitted to your bias and the refusal to take an objective look at things. And forgetting key things in the series is not helping your argument here either.

    Nope. You forgot about Lust, Sloth, and Wrath. And there's no point in even responding to the rest of this since you've shown you forgotten key things about the series that they went out of their way to show you. When you forget stuff, it's easy to misinterpret. So no, you don't get to turn that back onto me. Their deaths may have been different, but they were not unique. They all died under different circumstances, but they centered all on the same premise of the philosopher's stone being used up. That was the constant factor. The destruction or depletion of the stone. And as anecdotal as this may be, even friends I've introduced Brotherhood to wondered about other ways our heroes could have exploited that. And they're not even anime fans, but felt this was well written. So no, it's not just me. It's not my head cannon. I'm sure you'd be surprised that many other fans out there got that point from watching the series. Let me know when you've re-watched the whole series. Take your time. And with that, I'm going to bed. And you can PM me about it too if you want. Better to talk about it there than to potentially derail this thread further I think.
     
  16. SaberPrime

    SaberPrime System Pride

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Posts:
    9,308
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    The State of insanity.
    Likes:
    +2,670
    Greed

    Ling Yao

    Greed (2)

    As you can see here, Greed, Ling, and Greed2 are clearly credited as three different characters. They even have three different voice actors... well actually the English version has three different voice actors. They also list the original Japanese voice actors on those pages and apparently in the original Japanese version both versions of Greed were voiced by the same guy, Yuichi Nakamura. I'm curious now if maybe that's what you meant about hearing the original director's intent because having one person voice Greed regardless of what body he's in is obviously much different from the American version where Greed1 is Chris Patton and Greed2 is Troy Baker.

    If he believes himself to be a separate entity than doesn't that make him one? He has no memory of the other Greed and philosophically speaking what makes you YOU is your past experiences. You are the person you are today because of your past. Greed at that point has no past, no memory, so he is in a sense a different character.

    Yeah, but all your files are gone, everything that made it what it once was is gone, so in a sense it's not the same and unless you backed up that information it'll never be the same. Also Greed didn't just have his hard drive wiped, he also had it installed into a completely different computer. His original body is gone, his memories are gone, there is nothing left of the original Greed. He is essentially a completely different character.

    Exactly, Greed himself even identified as a different entity so why do you insist on treating them as the same person? What exactly do you think makes them the same guy?

    This might be hard for someone like you to understand but "I've" doesn't mean what you think it does. You're thinking comes from living as a single entity and makes it hard for you to comprehend life as ever being any other way.

    Let me explain it like this. If you drop a coffee cup on the floor, it shatters into different pieces. One piece is it's own separate entity from the others but at the same time they're all pieces of the same coffee cup. You could glue the cup back together but it's never going to be exactly the same as it was before you broke it. It's both a broken coffee cup, one entity, and multiple fractured pieces, multiple different entities. One thing and many things at the same time. It's just a different context.

    As far as I know there is no word for this concept but it applies to people as well. You think "I" can only mean one thing because in your mind there can only be I or us, one or the other not both. You hear Greed say "I've forgotten my whole past!" and you think he's acknowledging himself as the same entity as the first Greed. I suppose you think he should of said "He's forgotten his whole past!" But it's not actually that simple.

    He's basically like that broken cup. Let's say it's broken into 2 pieces. The handle has broken off. The coffee cup is still a coffee cup but it's lost it's handle. The cup and the handle are now two different things. You could say the coffee cup has lost it's handle in this context you'd be referring to the cup as it was, that it had a handle. You could also still refer to it as a coffee cup cause it still is, but it's not the same as it was before. It was a cup with a handle and now is a cup without a handle.

    Going back to Greed again, I doesn't necessarily mean he's acknowledging that he is Greed1 only that he was Greed1. He still clearly denies being that other Greed, he identifies himself as a different Greed, the second Greed, Greed2. There's a big difference between recognizing that he was once Greed1 in the past and actually acknowledging himself to still be the same Greed now.

    Well yeah. Of course it's easier for kids to pick up a new language than adults. I don't think I could do it at my age. It seems to be really hard for me to pick up other languages it all sounds like complete gibberish to me. I don't even remember how the hell I learned English. I just know it, I don't know how I know it, I just do. I've been speaking English longer than I can even remember. If I knew exactly how I learned English then maybe it could give me insight into how I could make other languages easier to learn. But as far as I can tell little kids just pick it up some how really quickly while adults struggle with it. It's not impossible to learn as an adult but just really hard and I don't have the time or the patients for that.

    I have no idea like I said it was on watchcartoonsonline.com. And also, you can adjust the settings for the size of the text in the DVD, you just go to set up and you should have an option to change the size of the subtitles. This is for people with poor vision who might not be able to read the default size. It's more likely that whoever uploaded the video to that web site had their settings set to a larger size cause I can't change it on the computer, it's part of the video once it's been uploaded online.

    Seems like I didn't misinterpret anything cause you're still saying the same thing exactly the same way I just interpreted it.

    "I said that Wrath is the most extreme form of anger. But that depending on the individual, they can show it differently!"

    It's right there, your words exactly and again I will say both statements can not be true. If Wrath is the most extreme form of anger then there can only be one form of Wrath. Depending on the individual they can show ANGER differently, this is true, but it's not WRATH, it's only wrath once they get to a level of anger that is going ballistic and everyone no matter who you are is capable of going ballistic. That is an extreme, wrath is that extreme.

    No, I never said that, you misinterpreted me. I said that Wrath is the extreme of those emotions, Wrath is all of those things but not all of those things are Wrath. Anger can be mild, Wrath can not.

    Not my words they're you own words. "depending on the individual, they can show it differently!" Those are YOUR words not mine. You keep saying this over and over again. Your entire argument is based around this idea. In order for this claim to be true then all anger must be Wrath.

    I have said that Wrath is only the most extreme level of anger, that means losing control and going ballistic. It's an extreme, there is only one way an extreme can work. If different things can happen then it's no longer an extreme, then all anger becomes wrath.

    Your argument only works if you equate all anger to wrath. If you agree that wrath is an extreme than this statement which YOU keep making must be false.

    Nope, once again you've failed to recognize I was talking about two different things.

    "Anger can manifest itself in many forms depending on the individual. I'm not over simplifying a very complex human emotion, you're over complicating it's extreme point to also include every single level below that extreme. When your talking about extremes you have to over simply it because that's the entire point of it being an extreme. Anger is a normal emotion with many different levels. Wrath is a excess of anger taken to the highest extreme. Anything short of actually going ballistic is not wrath."

    That's clearly a different context there cause in the first part when I denied over simplifying a very complex human emotion I was referring to anger in all it's forms. The second part where I say that you have to over simplify it I was referring to the extreme which is wrath not anger. Also you are equating wrath and anger to be the same thing otherwise you should of easily recognized that I was talking about two different things here. Anger is a spectrum not an extreme. Wrath is an extreme not a spectrum.

    I came to that conclusion because YOU are the one trying to claim that you can be calm and still be Wrath. YOU are the one claiming that there are different types of Wrath. In order for the things YOU claim to be true then all anger is Wrath. I did not lump anything together, I've always maintained that Wrath is an extreme, you're the one who keeps claiming that all anger is Wrath. Again your exact words. "depending on the individual, they can show it differently!" You said that not me. Depending on the individual they can show anger differently yes, but not wrath. Wrath is an extreme, extremes can not be different depending on the individual that's what makes it an extreme.

    Nope not at all. My words are my words and your words are your words. You keep trying to deny it but look in the very next quote you say it again.

    I'm over simplifying wrath because as I said before, it's an extreme not a spectrum. Wrath is the highest form of anger. The highest form of anger is when you lose control and go ballistic.

    I'm not saying that everyone is the same, I'm not saying that everyone copes with anger in the same way because we're not talking about anger we're talking about Wrath.

    And that entire quote you just equated Wrath as anger, the very thing that you keep denying that you're doing. You clearly said wrath but you're describing anger. That means that YOU think they're the same thing. You're lumping them together not me. I don't know why you think I'm doing it.

    "Wrath is NOT always going ballistic." Yes it is.

    "People handle themselves differently." That's anger not wrath.

    "They show their emotions differently, that's why there's such broad definitions and synonyms for each emotions to include the extremes." No arguments there.

    "But when it reaches the extremes, there's still different ways in which it manifests itself depending on the person's ability to deal with it." And here you've just lumped the extreme that is wrath in with all forms of anger again. There is not still different ways in which it manifests itself that's what make it an extreme because there is no higher level.

    As for the rest of it, you're just describing different levels of anger not wrath. Wrath does not have different levels, it's an extreme.

    I'm going to have to explain this a different way. The spectrum of anger goes like this.

    Level 1. Mildly annoyed.

    Level 2. Irritated.

    Level 3. mad.

    Level 4. Angry.

    Level 5. Pissed off.

    Level 6. I want to hurt someone.

    Level 7. I want to kill someone.

    Level 8. I'm going to hurt someone.

    Level 9. I'm going to kill someone.

    Level 10. Total loss of control/Ballistic mode/Wrath

    Different people will go through these states at different rates, some more quickly than others, some people might even skip over levels or go threw them in a different order. I'm not saying that everyone will experience the spectrum in the exact same way. The thing is though we're not talking about the spectrum. We're talking specifically about Level 10. That is Wrath. Anything other than a 10 is not wrath.

    According to you, who literally just claimed that Wrath can manifest itself in different ways, the entire spectrum is all Wrath including the lowest level Mildly annoyed. Which honestly right now in this conversation I feel like I'm in the spectrum some where between level 1 and level 2. By your logic this is wrath, everything is wrath because you keep insisting that everyone experiences it differently, because you keep insisting that the spectrum of anger is wrath then it's no longer an extreme, it's the entire spectrum. The highest extreme means that only level 10 can be Wrath. If you're saying that level 8 can be wrath too then that means so can level 1 and then it becomes a contradiction to the claim that there is no mild wrath. The only way it can be an extreme is if only level 10 is Wrath.

    Either it's just 10 or all of it is Wrath. Again, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

    Doesn't make any difference. Still means the same thing you're just saying it in a different way.

    Again, levels or ways in this context they mean the same thing.

    Again, here you are equating anger and wrath as being the same thing. You were in fact talking about anger, you think it's wrath but it's not. You're talking about it as a spectrum of different things or as you put it, "Wrath can manifest itself in different ways." but that is not wrath, that's anger. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. Wrath is simply one extreme of that spectrum, it doesn't manifest in different ways that's what makes it an extreme.

    You realize you actually just said anger this time? You're freely using wrath and anger interchangeably which again suggests that you think they're the same thing. And I never denied that there are different variations of anger.

    Yes I was and no I didn't. I guess you missed the part where I said I'm still pissed about what happened that night. I don't act on it but that doesn't mean she's forgiven. I just put up with her shit for the sake of the child. Just because I'm hiding my real feelings doesn't mean I've forgiven her. That will never happen.

    Sure I did, I'm not going into exact details cause it's private and I'm not going to share that to some random stranger on the internet. But I did give you a vague description of what happened.

    I don't know how to answer that question cause I don't even know what that has to do with what I said. What are you trying to ask me? I don't understand the question.

    I'm not ignoring it I don't know what it is. I'm not the author, I've never met the author, I've never even seen a picture of the author. How can I actively and purposely ignore someone I know nothing about?

    OK first of all I said it was rhetorical in my post. You seemed to think it was a real question cause you used it as evidence to your whole depleted battery theory. If you also thought it was rhetorical then why did you present it as evidence? That doesn't make sense.

    Secondly, the tone of the English version also sounded rhetorical which is why I said it was rhetorical.

    That is what we were discussing but their different powers and abilities is why there was never a clear definitive weakness. Greed's weakness was his inability to heal and maintain his ultimate shield at the same time. I'm sure if Ed wasn't already weakened himself and could keep attacking Greed the way he was going that he could of killed him by exploiting that weakness. But this has nothing to do with draining a battery, it's weakening his shield and taking advantage of the fact he can't heal with it. This strategy might work for Greed but it's not going to work with the others.

    I kinda want to watch the 2003 version again too.

    But it obviously has a completely different effect on Envy that isn't at all consistent with how Lust died.

    "you've admitted to it yourself" I said a lot of things in that quote so I'm not exactly sure what "it" is that you're referring to.

    "you admitted to your bias and the refusal to take an objective look at things." I never said any such thing.

    So you're now speaking utter nonsense and making up things that never happened?

    "And forgetting key things in the series is not helping your argument here either." OK that part is true but the rest of it, what the hell are you talking about?

    I didn't forget about them but no you do not see them die the same way as Father. You even admitted it wasn't the same earlier in this post. "The reason why there were no souls leaving Lust's body was because the energy provided by all those souls were used up. *POOF* gone. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The Amestris people souls were still intact when they left the "Father." And for the most part whatever was left of the souls that haven't been used up of the people of Xerxes." Now you're trying to claim that you do see souls leaving their bodies the same as Father?

    "Their deaths may have been different, but they were not unique." That's a contradiction. You just admitted that their deaths were different which by definition makes them unique and then claimed they're not unique which would mean they're not different.

    I'm not talking about the circumstances of their deaths. I'm talking about the result. Only Father has the souls leave his body, no one else does this. Only Envy turns into a little green thing. Only Pride turns into a fetus. ect.

    Even in the original Anime the actual circumstance of their deaths was difference but what actually killed them was the same, being near their remains. No matter what the circumstances of the death is always going to be different but that's not what I'm talking about.

    I'm talking about the fact that there was never any clear consistency between each death like there was with having their remains near them in the original anime. They didn't all have their battery depleted. Greed was absorbed back into Father, Gluttony was eaten by Pride, those two clearly have nothing to do with a depleted battery. There's also Van's death, everyone else died in battle while Van died just sitting on his knees visiting Trisha's grave. How do you explain that one? How was his battery depleted just sitting there talking? I don't get how you're so sure of this depleted battery theory when there's just as much evidence against it as there is supporting it.

    Just because others agree with your opinion doesn't make it a fact.

    And the thread is for Full Metal Alchemist so we're technically on topic... though we're suppose to be talking about the live action movie not the anime. Though there isn't really much I can say about something that hasn't been released yet. We're killing time till the movie actually comes out. Plus, I'm still going to end up comparing it to the animes at some point. It's inevitable.
     
  17. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    23,433
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +7,452
    Well, if I want one off-topic, outlandishly long wall-of-text post after another, I now know where to come: the Live-Action Full Metal Alchemist thread.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    20,499
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +7,372
  19. matrixprime

    matrixprime Just a guy who likes toys

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,008
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +300
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    This. So much this. After going back through FMA Brotherhood I still say it is the better of the two. While the animation style is virtually the same the pacing and the story to me are much better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. QLRformer

    QLRformer Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Posts:
    20,499
    News Credits:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +7,372