591 replies to this topic

[only Naruto]

I don't know, he is an Edo. Not sure how it works because it has been said the Edo version is held back. I mean it could work, but again, Edo, not alive with a reincarnation. But it is a possible idea.

ok. lets see . i think he will revive the real madara .i mean he just showed up from madaras lower body .why is it hard for him to find a way to revive him

[only Naruto]

Madara can comeback just like how orochimaru back(anko curse seal).

 there u go. rocci solved it .

[TouKen4Life3g]

 there u go. rocci solved it .

Now he has new plot point to have Sakura getting stabbed.

[only Naruto]

So take your bet on Hagoromo and Hokages:

- Tell them how to stop the moon eye jutsu
- Revive Madara
- Revive Hokages at their peak (saw this from NF)
- Send them to where Naruto and Sasuke are (respectively)
- Other: ___

i want to choose them all    but ill bet on send them to where naruto and sasuke are (respectively) 

[only Naruto]

Now he has new plot point to have Sakura getting stabbed.

hahahaha not again

[TouKen4Life3g]

hahahaha not again

Well he's hell bent to get that moment. Though if he wants that moment, it should happen while Obito is still alive, you know.

[only Naruto]

Well he's hell bent to get that moment. Though if he wants that moment, it should happen while Obito is still alive, you know.

ok but does he have a reason or he just feels it ..its actually interesting and  funny   and if its gonna happen obito  better be there,

[rocci]

Well he's hell bent to get that moment. Though if he wants that moment, it should happen while Obito is still alive, you know.

Well I never predict there will be another big boss(madara) and secret boss.
If obito is the only boss battle in this arc, then the one who will stab sakura is obito.

@onlynaruto
Thanks ^^

Edited by rocci, 07 July 2014 - 04:50 PM.

[TouKen4Life3g]

Well I never predict there will be another big boss(madara) and secret boss.
If obito is the only boss battle in this arc, then the one who will stab sakura is obito.

@onlynaruto
Thanks ^^

Wasn't your point is to have a parallel? Like if Obito is there to see it, he connects the dot. So, what is your real goal???

[only Naruto]

Well I never predict there will be another big boss(madara) and secret boss.
If obito is the only boss battle in this arc, then the one who will stab sakura is obito.

@onlynaruto
Thanks ^^

hahahahaha . ok any time.

[Jenskott]

 

 

And it's not just us that would label his actions as evil. The world of Naruto labels his actions as evil, hence the bounty.

 

Yes, but that is irrelevant in this matter.

 

Anyway I would tell the bounty has more to do with him having defected than him commiting evil acts. Historically ninja clans hunted nukenin not because they were evil but because defecting was punished with death.

 

 

That is the problem with this, you're just tackling the neutral mentality of the character, while disregarding the action, which I find just as important if not more.

 

 

No, the trouble is you are focusing on something irrelevant here. Being neutral IS about the mentality of the character, not about his actions. NOT about what you are focusing on. That is irrelevant to the definition of the term.

 

 

 

This argument hinges on a "what if" scenario.

 

No, my argument does not hinge on a "what-if" scenario.

 

I am using a "What-If" to explain why Sasuke is neutral-aligned. He does not care for making wrong but he is not reluctant to make good if it severs him? Then he is neutral.

 

My argument hinges on the objective definition of what a neutral character is.

 

 

 

And you could say the same with Orochimaru. You think he gives a damn if there are dozens of dead bodies strung up in his laboratory for experiments? Killing people was just a means to an end, he didn't care who suffered in the process to obtaining immortality.

 

No, you could not tell the same for Orochimaru, since he DID intend to make bad things and make people suffer. In fact he got some kind of sick pleasure out of it.

 

Now, let's tell that he used those means only because he found it more convenient, he did not enjoy it and was open to use civilized means... THEN he would he be NEUTRAL.

 

 

 

That is because Naruto actually cares about people's lives, something that is regarded as good in this series. One of the reasons why Asura was shown as the good guy in the flashback was because he had friends beside him. Indra was shown to be the bad lone wolf guy. He had no one beside him unlike Asura. Time and Time again, Kishi has made dozens of illustrations that show Naruto is good and Sasuke is evil. Naruto and Sasuke have always been represented by light and dark.

 

I am sorry, but again you are missing the point. I am explaining the difference between a Good-aligned character, and a Neutral-aligned character. Of course Naruto is a good character. It is because that he is Good-aligned.

 

 

 

Another "what if" scenario.

 

No, it is not. Read above.

 

 

 

We are past the point of that. Sasuke wants to burn the system to the ground, and delete the past, which means he wants to personally kill Naruto.
While his thoughts are apathetic to people's feelings, they're also being coupled with evil objectives.

 

His goals are wanting to change the system so no one else suffers. Is that an evil objective? Maybe you mean that his "means" are evil (since killing Naruto is not his goal but a mean to achieve it), because that description of yours sounds more like a well-intentioned extremist to me, since it implies that he wants to make something good but he thinks that sacrifices will be needed for that greater good.

 

...

 

Funny. Given your description, he has become an anti-villain.

 

Slightly off-topic, but has he SAID outright that he will kill Naruto to change the system? I still remember when phe said that he "would relive the clan" and people thought that he meant "making Uchiha babies".

 

Do not misunderstand me. I do not tell this because I like Sasuke. I do not.

 

 

 

And Kishimoto has said that Sasuke is pure, yet Sasuke himself has explicitly stated he is not pure.

 

I have said that I agree with Kishimoto on everything? No.

 

I do think he is right about this? Yes.

 

Also, Sasuke has said many things through the manga. I do not assume that you agree with all of them.

 

He has said that his actions are justified. Kishimoto has never said that they are. Which of them you agree with?

 

Anyway... well, I was going to ask you a link to that interview where he explicitely says that Sasuke is "pure" (not because I think that you are trying lie to me. There is a lot of inaccurate or outright false information online about what creators tell or not tell that people automatically believes and spreads due to not fact-checking. So I like to check sources), but I have realized I am not so interested in this debate.

 

 

 

 I let the series do the talking for Kishi, rather than hear what he has to say from an interview.

 

I am sorry, but I am not a fan of the Death of the Author concept.

 

Honestly, have you never read a book or watched a movie and then listened to interviews of the creators because you were puzzled or curious about something and you would like additional insight or details?

 

Yes, ideally reading/watching... a work should be everything what someone needs to understand it. But often a creator can not accurately depict that he/she means, or he/she has to cut material due to time or space constrains or the published product is different than he/she had in mind. And, well... There is a trope called Misaimed Fandom for one reason. Sometimes a creator does/can not express his/her ideas adequately, but other times fans reach the oddest conclusions.

 

So sometimes it is good listen to the author clarifying some points of his/her work. And, honestly... it is his/her creation. He knows it better than anybody, so I tend to value the author's interpretation. Otherwise I also could join the people that that claims that Dr. Doom was a victim of Mr. Fantastic jealousy, Sauron was good and misunderstood, Gundam Wing main characters were all homosexual and in love with each other, or Sakura is an evil harpy has never cared about Naruto.

[ioria]

i know they are not real people but kishi is trying to send  a message to reality to follow .about peace .and everyone has his own reality and peace thats why some people agree with kish and some dont .cause everyone thinks his reality is the right one . .and if u ask what is the right  reality .thats the 1 billion $ question 

 

Kishi's idea of "peace" doesn't reflect my own views, you are right about this.

[luffyq1]

Yes, but that is irrelevant in this matter.

Outside sources such as yourself says he's neutral, while the manga says otherwise.
 

Anyway I would tell the bounty has more to do with him having defected than him commiting evil acts. Historically ninja clans hunted nukenin not because they were evil but because defecting was punished with death.

I don't believe it was merely just because he defected. There are other crimes that are bounty worthy other than leaving a village. Itachi slaughtering his clan is one of them. There's really no point not to add onto the list of things a ninja commits once he leaves the village.
 

No, the trouble is you are focusing on something irrelevant here. Being neutral IS about the mentality of the character, not about his actions. NOT about what you are focusing on. That is irrelevant to the definition of the term.

neu·tral
ˈn(y)o͞otrəl/Submit
adjective
adjective: neutral
1.
not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.

Again, you're still thinking that it's only exclusive to the mentality aspect, while disregarding the action.
 
 

No, my argument does not hinge on a "what-if" scenario.
 
I am using a "What-If" to explain why Sasuke is neutral-aligned. He does not care for making wrong but he is not reluctant to make good if it severs him? Then he is neutral.

His allegiance is not neutral. He wanted to clean up the mess that he thinks Konoha did to his clan and Itachi personally. Not only did it serve him, but it served the deceased members of the clan and most importantly Itachi.
 

My argument hinges on the objective definition of what a neutral character is.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Personal feelings are what drive him. Itachi drove him, his clan drove him and not so long ago, team 7 once drove him as well.
 
 

No, you could not tell the same for Orochimaru, since he DID intend to make bad things and make people suffer. In fact he got some kind of sick pleasure out of it.

Yeah, you kinda can. Sasuke wanted to personally destroy Danzo for Itachi. He smile at the fact that Danzo was going to die. And let's not forget how he acted during the Land of iron arc where he was smiling because he wanted to kill Kakashi.
 

Now, let's tell that he used those means only because he found it more convenient, he did not enjoy it and was open to use civilized means... THEN he would he be NEUTRAL.

Look above this statement. He did enjoy it as evident from the smile he had when he pierced Danzo. He was finally cleansing his clan.
 
 

I am sorry, but again you are missing the point. I am explaining the difference between a Good-aligned character, and a Neutral-aligned character. Of course Naruto is a good character. It is because that he is Good-aligned.

The reason why I described the differences is because of the manga's excessive illustration of Sasuke being bad and Naruto being good. Light vs Darkness. He's evil, bro. 
 

No, it is not. Read above.

Yes, it is. Now you read above. lol
 
 

His goals are wanting to change the system so no one else suffers. Is that an evil objective?

The way he wants to go about it, yes. Changing that system will also require a high status of position, hence his Hokage campaign. And no one is electing him for Hokage. If he says he doesn't care what the people think, how else will he become Hokage? Most likely by force. Smells like a dictator mentality to me.

 

Maybe you mean that his "means" are evil (since killing Naruto is not his goal but a mean to achieve it), because that description of yours sounds more like a well-intentioned extremist to me, since it implies that he wants to make something good but he thinks that sacrifices will be needed for that greater good.

Killing Naruto has always been a personal objective of Sasuke. He won't allow Obito to kill Naruto because Sasuke believes that it's his job to do so for personal reasons. Jealous obviously factors into it.
 

...
 
Funny. Given your description, he has become an anti-villain.

Not really.
 

Slightly off-topic, but has he SAID outright that he will kill Naruto to change the system? I still remember when phe said that he "would relive the clan" and people thought that he meant "making Uchiha babies".

No, I don't think so. Killing Naruto is a team 7 issue. It'll probably mix into a system change issue soon if they are to fight for position of Hokage.
 

Do not misunderstand me. I do not tell this because I like Sasuke. I do not.

Don't worry, the feeling is definitely mutual.
 
 

I have said that I agree with Kishimoto on everything? No.

I do think he is right about this? Yes.

Sorry, for a second I thought you valued the interview over the actual characters statements.
 

Also, Sasuke has said many things through the manga. I do not assume that you agree with all of them.

Don't know if I should agree with all the things he says since his objective changes more than a models wardrobe during the runway.
 

He has said that his actions are justified. Kishimoto has never said that they are. Which of them you agree with?

Sometimes I'd agree with Sasuke, other times I'm siding with Kishi. One thing that I will never agree to as justification is the claims of mass murdering from Sasuke just because he wants to turn their laughter into screams.
 

Anyway... well, I was going to ask you a link to that interview where he explicitely says that Sasuke is "pure" (not because I think that you are trying lie to me. There is a lot of inaccurate or outright false information online about what creators tell or not tell that people automatically believes and spreads due to not fact-checking. So I like to check sources), but I have realized I am not so interested in this debate.

By all means, if you're disinterested in this debate, then please continue no further. If I am not satisfying you, I will be sure to give you a refund.
 
 

I am sorry, but I am not a fan of the Death of the Author concept.

I'm not saying that everything Kishi says is a wrong. I'm saying that not everything Kishi says about the manga reflects back accurately to his statements.
 

Honestly, have you never read a book or watched a movie and then listened to interviews of the creators because you were puzzled or curious about something and you would like additional insight or details?

Yes, ideally reading/watching... a work should be everything what someone needs to understand it. But often a creator can not accurately depict that he/she means, or he/she has to cut material due to time or space constrains or the published product is different than he/she had in mind. And, well... There is a trope called Misaimed Fandom for one reason. Sometimes a creator does/can not express his/her ideas adequately, but other times fans reach the oddest conclusions.
 
So sometimes it is good listen to the author clarifying some points of his/her work. And, honestly... it is his/her creation. He knows it better than anybody, so I tend to value the author's interpretation. Otherwise I also could join the people that that claims that Dr. Doom was a victim of Mr. Fantastic jealousy, Sauron was good and misunderstood, Gundam Wing main characters were all homosexual and in love with each other, or Sakura is an evil harpy has never cared about Naruto.

Sure I have had questions. But I doubt I'll get good answers from Kishi explaining the plotholes and OOC. Well, it's not like I care all that much anymore.

[DattebayoXShannaro]

Yes, just like rukawa and Anna. Nothing new.

 

Who are they?

 

So take your bet on Hagoromo and Hokages:

- Tell them how to stop the moon eye jutsu
- Revive Madara
- Revive Hokages at their peak (saw this from NF)
- Send them to where Naruto and Sasuke are (respectively)
- Other: ___

 

-Send them to where Naruto and Sasuke are (respectively)

 

But who would want to go where Sasuke is?  They'll be stranded along with him.

[TouKen4Life3g]

 
Who are they?
 
 
-Send them to where Naruto and Sasuke are (respectively)
 
But who would want to go where Sasuke is?  They'll be stranded along with him.

Not like Hagoromo knows that. Oh wait. True, but dude needs help. Tobirama can keep using water jutsu. Ah!!!

Edited by NaruSaku4Life3g, 07 July 2014 - 07:07 PM.

[Jenskott]

Outside sources such as yourself says he's neutral, while the manga says otherwise.

 

Outside forces such like myself? You are talking like if I am coming up with all of this.

 

I am not the one says he is neutral. I am telling you he is a Chaotic Neutral character under the objective definition of the term.

 

http://tvtropes.org/.../ChaoticNeutral

 

This is not something I have come up with because I am trying to defend Kishimoto's writing or something of the sorts. THIS is the definition of Chaotic Neutral character and Sasuke fits with her. You insist that he does not due to his actions, but actions have nothing to do with whether a character is Chaotic neutral or not.

 

And the manga does NOT says otherwise. Sasuke in the manga behaves right like a Neutral-aligned character behaves.

 

Anyway, I think we have already explained our points of view so it is all right with you I will reply some of your points and I'll leave you have the last word. Please, do not take this like a sign of I have no counter-arguments or I concede, but I think we will be going on circles. Agree disagree?

 

 

neu·tral
ˈn(y)o͞otrəl/Submit
adjective
adjective: neutral
1.
not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.

Again, you're still thinking that it's only exclusive to the mentality aspect, while disregarding the action.

 

That is because a character being neutral or not IS exclusive to the mentality: they are characters do not care for the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

 

Typically though, Chaotic Neutral characters do whatever the hell they like and damn the consequences (unless they're too noble or hurtful, watch out for that part!).

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticNeutral

 

His mentality is doing whatever they want, good or bad. So actions have no bearing on their neutral status. Only their mentality.

 

 

 

Look above this statement. He did enjoy it as evident from the smile he had when he pierced Danzo. He was finally cleansing his clan.

 

So you are telling he enjoyed killing Danzo because he was achieving his goals... and not because he was murdering someone. It sounds like what I was telling.

 

 

 

He's evil, bro. 

 

Bro?

 

I am sorry, but I think I have tried to be kind and respectful during this debate. That bit has sounded condescending, and I do not appreciate it.

 

 

 

Yes, it is. Now you read above. lol

 

LOL?

 

I said "read above" because I had already replied that and I did not want to repeat myself again.

 

Again, I have tried not sound offensive or being insulting. But your "lol" gives the impression of you are mocking me or my words. Again, I do not appreciate it.

 

 

 

The way he wants to go about it, yes. Changing that system will also require a high status of position, hence his Hokage campaign. And no one is electing him for Hokage. If he says he doesn't care what the people think, how else will he become Hokage? Most likely by force. Smells like a dictator mentality to me.

 

But then you are agreeing with me that his objective (or goals, if you prefer) is not evil but his means.

 

And right like I have said, it sounds to a well-intentioned extremist.

 

Dictator mentality? Maybe. Many dictators of History were well-intentioned extremists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro... all of them were convinced of they were doing the best for his country and people.

 

 

 

Killing Naruto has always been a personal objective of Sasuke. He won't allow Obito to kill Naruto because Sasuke believes that it's his job to do so for personal reasons. Jealous obviously factors into it.

 

Always?

 

I do not know where you got this from. I thought that it was clear that Sasuke decided to kill him when they fought in the Valley of the End. I see no signs to think otherwise because he had always treated Naruto with indifference or respect until Tsunade healed him (and he woke up more unhinged than before). When Sasuke got out of the barrell he ignored Naruto and fled instead of attacking him. And at the Valle of the End, he was unable to kill Naruto in spite of he got several chances. And later everything he talked about was killing Itachi or destroying Konoha, nothing about wanting to kill Naruto.

 

So I am sorry, but I do not see what you mean with "always".

 

 

 

Sorry, for a second I thought you valued the interview over the actual characters statements.

 

I can not value that interview because I have not read it. Anyway I value an author's interpretation over mine because it is HIS work, he has done it and he knows it better than me.

 

I may think that maybe the author failed on portraying his intentions and interpretation right... but that is irrelevant. He creates his characters, he knows them better than me. I can not disregard the canonicity of his interpretation only because I do not like or I do not agree with it.

 

I did not like RonxHermione and I support HxH, but I do not pretend that Harry was in love with Hermione when the creator clearly said he was not, regardless what I would like. Arguing about this is so futile as arguing "Who shot first" in Star Wars.

 

Look, when I read Gunsmith Cats (a cop manga), one of the main villains was scum: a Mafia boss was a drug dealer, muderer, pedophile... and she was portrayed like a despicable human being. when Kenichi Sonoda wrote the sequel -Gunsmith Cats Burst- suddenly most of her crimes were forgotten and all of sudden she was not so bad. I detested that change, but what can you do? I am not the one is writing it.

 

 

 

Don't know if I should agree with all the things he says since his objective changes more than a models wardrobe during the runway.

 

Then why you should give some measure of credibility to ANY of the things he says?

 

 

Sometimes I'd agree with Sasuke, other times I'm siding with Kishi. One thing that I will never agree to as justification is the claims of mass murdering from Sasuke just because he wants to turn their laughter into screams.

 

But why siding with Sasuke at all? If his opinion is not reliable then it is not reliable.

 

Anyway Sasuke's statement does not contradict Kishimoto's. Sasuke tells he is not pure because he THINKS he is not pure. It talks about how he sees himself and not how his creator sees him.

 

Tolkien got one letter of a fan telling that he (or she) had a trouble about Treebeard telling that "trolls were created from ents". Tolkien noted that the exact wording was "derived from" -which completely changed the implications- and reminded the reader that Treebeard is a character of his story and not Tolkien himself, so Treebeard does not know so many things like his creator does.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that everything Kishi says is a wrong. I'm saying that not everything Kishi says about the manga reflects back accurately to his statements.

 

Well, before you said that you did not listen to him anymore. That kind of implies that he is always wrong because you can not trust one word what he says.

 

Maybe. But it is hard telling whose is blame when we are talking about creators and fans having different interpretations. It is the creator's blame because he has failed on putting his intentions and interpretation on paper clearly? Or it is the readers' blame  because instead of reading what is actually written they have seen what they have wanted to see?

 

I am not talking about Kishimoto especifically here. I find that everywhere. And sometimes I feel the creators should have done a better work, and other times I think the fans are only imagining things due to their own biases.

 

 

Sure I have had questions. But I doubt I'll get good answers from Kishi explaining the plotholes and OOC. Well, it's not like I care all that much anymore.

 

I do not know either if his explanations would be satisfactory to me; but if I need knowing more things I'll read his interviews to ry to have an explanation. So yes, reading interviews and use them to further your understanding of the canon or interpretate it is legitimate.

 

And with this I am done. I hope nobody felt offended by some reason.

[rocci]

Wasn't your point is to have a parallel? Like if Obito is there to see it, he connects the dot. So, what is your real goal???

Yup that's what I mean. Is it bad?

@dattebayoxshanaro
Rukawa is a rival character from slamdunk
Anna is the heroine of shaman king.

Edited by rocci, 07 July 2014 - 10:11 PM.

[TouKen4Life3g]

Yup that's what I mean. Is it bad?

Nope. Though some will be like "ugh". Right, Luffy?

[rocci]

Nope. Though some will be like "ugh". Right, Luffy?

Well it will give obito motivation to activate his susanoo.

[TouKen4Life3g]

Well it will give obito motivation to activate his susanoo.

Hm, not a bad one. But isn't it too soon for Sakura to get stabbed?