Just watched this.
I really liked it. Great music, great animation, even the CG was well done.
So I guess... Sky Crawler thread.
There was one thing I didn't quite get though.
Was Teacher both the father of that little girl, and the MC?
Not insterted this evening, /a/?
He is the father of the little girl, and the original from which the MC (and his predecessors, and his successor from the last scene) was cloned from. Being surrounded by repeatedly dying copies of her former lover is one of the biggest reasons why not!Motoko is so fucked up.
So MC (I just watched it, but forgot the name) is a clone of Teacher, who was the female commander's lover? So indireclty MC is the little girls father?
It bothers me that the director doesn't have his characters blink. It's acceptable for androids, but even Shirow has them blink to clean their optics. I loved a girl in high school that looked like the commander. I leave this movie playing on loop sometimes.
Now that you mention it, I didn't really see the characters blinking that much, but I somehow find it fitting to their eyes. The animation when in the cockpit was great, so I think it made up for itself.
It was nice, but very slow, with a DEEP story.
I enjoyed it though.
Well, only genetically. The clones do not share Teacher's memories.
What the fuck was this even about??
Yeah, I didn't see much of a start nor a conclusion, but I guess that was a part of the plot.
That is kind of sad. Rostock corp are dicks for stationing the clones at her base. Are the clones "forever young" or do they age once "activated"? Are the "Kindren" a device that keeps people young, or is it a cloning machine (that's why their memory is fuzzy, because they don't remember anything from before they were made).
They're forever young, yes. "Kildren" is the term for the military-purpose clones themselves.
So they are not "Clones with added immortality" (Clones who were cloned, THEN made immortal)
but "Clones who are unable to age" (The were genetically altered to not age WHEN they were cloned)
There is almost no difference, but I can't really express myself so well in english. Thanks for explaining!
The lack of a clear start and conclusion is the point, the mock war is explicitly endless and there's no escape for the clones, as they're 100% replaceable and treated as a resource. So the only thing they can do to be happier is stop alienating each other.
There are no details given about the cloning process itself. For all intents and purposes, they just appear at the designated platoon, without any clear memories of the past, and do not age until they're inevitably killed in combat.
So it's okay to make them immortal since they are considered disposable. You wouldn't want a REAL person to be immortal, cuz then they turn into dicks like elves.
It was about dying for Israel.
>The lack of a clear start and conclusion is the point, the mock war is explicitly endless and there's no escape for the clones, as they're 100% replaceable and treated as a resource. So the only thing they can do to be happier is stop alienating each other.
The whole thing is Oshii's metaphor for the recurring cliches and perpetual juvenility of the anime industry and fandom. The interchangeable protagonists, the constant need of approval of a absent father figure, and complete lack of ambition and motivation, it's all a bitter resentment filled statement. I find that fascinating.
Well, congratulations to him for making a deliberately boring ass movie.
If it was boring, it means that it was too hard for you to understand.
There was nothing to understand. The story goes somewhere only at the very end. This should've been a short not a full-length movie.
The movie was just so goddamn boring. Scenes drag on for too long and just when you think the story is going to move on it stops dead in its tracks with an action sequence. I don't know how you felt about CGI but I personally felt nothing about it and I felt nothing for the protagonist because he has no personality. Nobody in this movie has personality. I guess that's the point? Fine, but that's not a way to make an interesting movie. So am I supposed to care about the war? No, that's another point nobody cares about the war. Why keep showing them? If you absolutely had to show a war you could've done this in one short sequence and not keep distracting me from the unnecessary long shots of scenery. Ironically the action sequences were three times as boring as a scene of some guy carefully folding a paper (great plot point btw).
Movies can be interesting without being fun or exciting. If you didn't find it interesting then it clearly wasn't for you. That's fine, people have different tastes. But the movie didn't 'fail' if it accomplished what it clearly set out to do just because you didn't like it. Not everyone likes mood pieces.
So how does a protagonist, who is in a constant need of approval of an absent father figure, impregnating not-Major fit into this metaphor?
Is Oshii implying that he was fucked by Tomino or Anno?
>There was nothing to understand.
You mean that there was nothing you were capable of understanding. The whole thing is based on Camus' theories about Absurdism, as elucidated in his "The Myth of Sysiphus". According to Camus, life is so absurd that there are only a limited number of responses that a sane person can make. Among these are the archetypes he calls "absurd men" - the serial seducer, the actor and the conqueror. The male Kildren are all three - they visit the company whores endlessly, they participate in a staged war, and they are forced to kill. So actually there's lots to understand.
If it wanted to be boring then it indeed succeeded.
The world is absurd and dull. I got that. You don't really need to know any of what you typed to understand what this movie is doing. You get it in the first 10 minutes.
>If it wanted to be boring then it indeed succeeded.
I wouldn't say 'boring,' per se, but he clearly wanted to portray the monotony and futility of the whole system.
>he clearly wanted to portray the monotony and futility of the whole system
Which ties in with Sysiphus.
>The world is absurd and dull. I got that.
I'm glad you got something. You better never try to watch/play Little Busters, the philosophy is way out of your league.
Couldn't tell, been a few years since I've actually seen the film. But from Justin Sevakis review:
" Most of (the pilots) are interchangeable, and the characters themselves are milquetoast and free of personality, as Yuichi is. Like the avatar of a dating simulator, the expected things seem to just happen to him. And, indeed, nothing else will happen to him until he realizes that his way out is to strive towards something."
Woah, that's cool, I love stuff like this.
didn't think so though. It's fine if it didn't suit your tastes though. There is certainly movies that you can enjoy. This movie requires curiousity, intellect and knowledge, and I understand that it's hard to come across all at the same time, when there are no tits in the entire movie.
>I'm glad you got something. You better never try to watch/play Little Busters, the philosophy is way out of your league.
Haven't seen Little Busters passed the first few episodes so I don't know if you're implying that the show is heavily laden with metaphors that it would sail over his head or EVEN a show with light metaphors like Little Busters would still confound him.
The second probably.
I'm like you and didn't watch past the first three episode though. It sounds as I should try again.
Read the visual novel.
>Woah, that's cool, I love stuff like this.
The Camus connection wasn't even hidden, they talk about him in the opening scenes.
I mean that Riki is straight out of Kierkegaard's "The Sickness unto Death". He exemplifies the "three despairs". This is copy pasta, but at least it's my own copy pasta:
In his book The Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard examines three types of despair. The first sort arises from a lack of knowledge or awareness of anything beyond a limited finite existence, an unconsciousness (in the sense of “not knowing”) of anything spiritual. And here we have Riki with his narcolepsy, periodically becoming literally unconscious.
The second sort of despair arises from a realisation that things beyond the finite actually do exist, and manifests itself in organising things in such a way as to distract from that realisation. So now we have the Little Busters adopting Riki as a member and organising his life to help him recover from his first encounter with things beyond the finite, the death of his parents.
The third sort of despair arises from the acceptance of the spiritual and the infinite, but at the same time refusing to accept the will of God. And so Riki, beginning to see Kyousuke’s god-like role in the world, refuses to accept it and runs away with Rin.
Oshii characters don't have facial expressions.
Yeah, I was somewhat confused when I posted, and thought perhaps I heard the name "Camus" in some other video, but I usually don't check out all the names that's being mentioned in anime.
Is Kirkegaard known outside scandinavia?
One of the Key staffers, Yuuto Tonokawa, is apparently into Kierkegaard.
Absolutely. He uncommonly read, but definitely known about in educated circles
Unlike the metaphor in Sky Crawlers, Little Busters is obviously intended for an audience who primarily doesn't know anything about Kierkegaard and doesn't make it bother to make references to his works overt. The person you were initially replying to may not be too bright, but I'd never tell someone to not read Little Busters just because they wouldn't understand the parallel.
That's where Sky Crawlers and Little Busters really differ. It's very easy to just see Sky Crawlers as a pointless and boring movie without being knowledgeable and thoughtful.
>It's very easy to just see Sky Crawlers as a pointless and boring movie
That's Oshii's fault for trying to turn a philosophical concept into a story, instead of just writing a good story with a philosophical "Easter egg" or two in it.
You seem to be under the impression that Oshii makes movies for anyone else other than Oshii.
Right. I don't think Sky Crawlers is exactly a bad movie, but it's intended for a very specific type of person, and if even if the viewer understood everything it was trying to do, he might not think it is good movie.
Little Busters on the other hand is intended for a broader group of people and it first and foremost a compelling story with philosophical leanings as a secondary aspect of it.