169 replies to this topic

[TerrorKing]

Eh, to me there is a limit. If I believe in somthing and there is irrefutable proof that I am wrong, then I just look stubbornly obstinate. The question is, what is fact and what has yet to be proven? I mean, if someone still believes that Tobi is not Obito, even though it is proven that he is Obito...then they are just ignorant to the truth.

True, but this is more about what people want out of the manga. Right now, those who want Sasuke to be saved are just as right as those who want him to die, becuase either of those have yet to be proven right/wrong. I dont' really know what to call it. Beliefs, ideas, wishes? My point is that, changing what you wish would happen in the manga is perfectly okay. Sure there is a limit in that if ýou change your opinon all the time, people might consider you untrustworthy and/or vacillating. This was also one of the points I was making earlier.

As for hypocrisy, I just want to say that having an idea that changes is not hypocrisy. This was not what I was referring to. Having a belief and then going against the belief while still believing in such is hypocrisy. If you hate the Naruto manga, yet still read it, that's being a hypocrite. Not pointing at anyone specifically, but just giving an example.

Well, then I guess I just midsundertstood what you were trying to say. But yeah, you're right. As such, even if people to change their wants and desires from time to time, that still does not make them hypocrites as long as they don't go against those ideas.

We all actively altering reality, but what I am thinking of is fate or what we deem as fate. There are some moments in our lives where we can't alter the events even if we want to. We can't stop a person from dying if they are going to die. Obito mentioned this to Naruto as well. Because Naruto and Sasuke were decendant from the two brothers, so it is fate that they were going to fight, just as Madara and Harashima were going to fight.

That depends on your outlook on life. Some might consider dying as "fate", while others might consider it "a natural part of life" or whatever. In the end, they're both basically the same thing, but the difference is that things that there labeled as "fate" are often considered to be something you cannot change, while things that are considered "a natural part of life", like puberty or death are just what they are. An inevitable part of every persons life. If I were to take a guess, I would say that Naruto belongs in the latter category. I think even he understands that there are certain aspects of life, like people dying, that you just can't change no matter how hard your try. If he and Sasuke ends up having to fight each other, I don't think he would consider it to be "fate" but rather "an inevitable consuequence of a conflict of interest", i.e. Naruto wants to protect Konoha while Sasuke wants to destroy it.

Thats what I am talking about really, but also if Sasuke dies in the end would Naruto accept this outcome? One of the biggest debates I had with a few members is about whether or not Naruto would accept any outcome besides Sasuke coming back to the village. Some said that Sasuke couldn't die because Naruto would never let himself live it down. Some say Sasuke has to be this wandering samurai kind of thing. Some say he would be thrown in prison.

I just want to know what kind of ending would Naruto accept besides bringing him back with full redemptions. I guess that is what has been puzzling me for a while.

As I mentioned above, I think that if Naruto is ultimately forced to kill Sasuke, then that's what he's going to do. I say this because of his speech during the Kage summi arc. For me personally, I just want an ending where Naruto suceeds in bringing Sasuke back from the path of darkness. He doesn't have to come back to the village or even live. All I wan't is for him to ultimately be "redeemed". This is mostly because I think an ending like this fits with the overall themes of the manga, but also because I just really really like happy endings and I really really don't like sad (or bad) endings.

Of course, if it doesn't happen then I will just have to live with that.

[James S Cassidy]

True, but this is more about what people want out of the manga. Right now, those who want Sasuke to be saved are just as right as those who want him to die, becuase either of those have yet to be proven right/wrong. I dont' really know what to call it. Beliefs, ideas, wishes? My point is that, changing what you wish would happen in the manga is perfectly okay. Sure there is a limit in that if ýou change your opinon all the time, people might consider you untrustworthy and/or vacillating. This was also one of the points I was making earlier.

Yes, so we agree. Their are things that remain theories until proven otherwise and there are things that are left to the imagination. Like the ending to Cowboy Bebop.

Well, then I guess I just midsundertstood what you were trying to say. But yeah, you're right. As such, even if people to change their wants and desires from time to time, that still does not make them hypocrites as long as they don't go against those ideas.

No it doesn't make them hypocrites, but generally speaking I was making a point that if anyone follows this logic as I have shown then it would be hypocrisy. If you don't and just say "Well, there are things I want, but I know it probably won't happen and I am a kind of person that thinks certain things until proven otherwise" then that would you make you open-minded. If you don't follow that logic, then no, you are not a hypocrite. See, I set it up in such a way that when you read it you self-judge yourself. This way you can see if you're a hypocrite or not. If you don't think that way, then you're not. Not accusing of anyone of being a hypocrite, just saying if you follow the logic, then you're a hypocrite.

It's up to you what it means to you. If you get mad at what you read, then it tells you that you personally see yourself as a hypocrite or you place yourself into the group that it talks about. See?

That depends on your outlook on life. Some might consider dying as "fate", while others might consider it "a natural part of life" or whatever. In the end, they're both basically the same thing, but the difference is that things that there labeled as "fate" are often considered to be something you cannot change, while things that are considered "a natural part of life", like puberty or death are just what they are. An inevitable part of every persons life. If I were to take a guess, I would say that Naruto belongs in the latter category. I think even he understands that there are certain aspects of life, like people dying, that you just can't change no matter how hard your try. If he and Sasuke ends up having to fight each other, I don't think he would consider it to be "fate" but rather "an inevitable consuequence of a conflict of interest", i.e. Naruto wants to protect Konoha while Sasuke wants to destroy it.

Same thing, just different names. Death is inevitable for everyone, but what about moments you're not so sure about? Is it only considered "fate" if you know it is going to happen? Take into example Kishimoto and the ending to his manga. He said he knows how the manga is going to end, but how he gets there is what might change. Wouldn't that be the concept of fate? Just because we don't know what the ending will be doesn't make it any less fate.

If your lover is leaving you and you try everything you can to make her stay even changing the way you live your life and they still leave, is that not considered fate? You can't stop her from leaving. You can't alter or change their mind no matter what you do.

I like a scene in Max Payne the best. I know I am quoting a few thing, but their words are so much better than mine. It's also how I see this convoy going.

Vladimir Lem: "Hypothetically, if the only choice you've got is to do the wrong thing, then it's not really the *wrong* thing, is it? It's more like fate. "
Max Payne: "It's never that simple"
Vladimir Lem: "Of course, We agree to disagree.

As I mentioned above, I think that if Naruto is ultimately forced to kill Sasuke, then that's what he's going to do. I say this because of his speech during the Kage summi arc. For me personally, I just want an ending where Naruto suceeds in bringing Sasuke back from the path of darkness. He doesn't have to come back to the village or even live. All I wan't is for him to ultimately be "redeemed". This is mostly because I think an ending like this fits with the overall themes of the manga, but also because I just really really like happy endings and I really really don't like sad (or bad) endings.

I agree. I want Sasuke to have that Darth Vadar ending because I want Naruto to learn a truth that hasn't been touched on before. That truth is that just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean you failed. If Sasuke gets saved and sacrifices himself to save Naruto, then it would mean that Narut has learned one of the most important aspect in his life. There are many ways to succeed in life, but sometimes it won't be exactly like you picture it. Doesn't mean that you failed. It just means that you can't stop somethings from happening no matter how much to try.

This is like with the Mass Effect 3 ending. While I like the endings I do wish we were given the choice of a super-mega happy ending. Especially when this game was all based around choice, it would be cool to just have that option to gain the endings.

Edited by James S Cassidy, 24 October 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[Gravenimage]

Chapter 607 should be release later tonight can't wait.

[TerrorKing]

Yes, so we agree. Their are things that remain theories until proven otherwise and there are things that are left to the imagination. Like the ending to Cowboy Bebop.

Indeed we do.

No it doesn't make them hypocrites, but generally speaking I was making a point that if anyone follows this logic as I have shown then it would be hypocrisy. If you don't and just say "Well, there are things I want, but I know it probably won't happen and I am a kind of person that thinks certain things until proven otherwise" then that would you make you open-minded. If you don't follow that logic, then no, you are not a hypocrite. See, I set it up in such a way that when you read it you self-judge yourself. This way you can see if you're a hypocrite or not. If you don't think that way, then you're not. Not accusing of anyone of being a hypocrite, just saying if you follow the logic, then you're a hypocrite.

It's up to you what it means to you. If you get mad at what you read, then it tells you that you personally see yourself as a hypocrite or you place yourself into the group that it talks about. See?

Hyporcrisy means saying one thing and then doing another or advocating certain beliefs and then going against them. If I told my hypothetical son that he wasn't allowed to eat chocolate because it was unhealthy and it would make him fat and I was then caught secretly eating chocolate, then that would make me a hypocrite.

So what you're saying is that if people take offense to yoru post or if they try to counter it, then that only proves that you're right? If that's the case, then I don't really agree with that. To me, it seems like your basic argument is "First you want A to happen and not B and then when A finally happens then you instead want B to happen". This is what I would simply define as changing one's opinon and that is not necessarily the same.

An example of hypocrisy within the Naruto community would be when people said about Sakura "She's so weak. She should become stronger" and then when she did become stronger people said "Now she's too powefult" or "Now she's a Mary Sue". You could say that they merely changed their opinon, but in some cases I would say that it goes deeper than that and that they really just hate Sakura but they don't want to admit it, so they pretend like they will like her better if she changes for the better, but in reality they just hate her.

I don't know. I guess my primary argument is that things aren't always black and white and that things need to be judged on a case by case basis. The reason why I quoted you was not because I was mad about what you wrote, but more because I wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

Same thing, just different names. Death is inevitable for everyone, but what about moments you're not so sure about? Is it only considered "fate" if you know it is going to happen? Take into example Kishimoto and the ending to his manga. He said he knows how the manga is going to end, but how he gets there is what might change. Wouldn't that be the concept of fate? Just because we don't know what the ending will be doesn't make it any less fate.

If your lover is leaving you and you try everything you can to make her stay even changing the way you live your life and they still leave, is that not considered fate? You can't stop her from leaving. You can't alter or change their mind no matter what you do.

I like a scene in Max Payne the best. I know I am quoting a few thing, but their words are so much better than mine. It's also how I see this convoy going.

Vladimir Lem: "Hypothetically, if the only choice you've got is to do the wrong thing, then it's not really the *wrong* thing, is it? It's more like fate. "
Max Payne: "It's never that simple"
Vladimir Lem: "Of course, We agree to disagree.

My point was that "fate" is usually defined as something that you cannot change no matter how hard you try. I know that I have exams here in January, so I guess that that is my "fate" if I wan't to finish my education. However, whether I pass or fail is not a question of faith, because that is something that I can actually influence.

So I guess my conclusion is that "fate" is something that you absolutely cannot change no matter how hard you try, while everything that you actually can change if you try isn't.

I agree. I want Sasuke to have that Darth Vadar ending because I want Naruto to learn a truth that hasn't been touched on before. That truth is that just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted doesn't mean you failed. If Sasuke gets saved and sacrifices himself to save Naruto, then it would mean that Narut has learned one of the most important aspect in his life. There are many ways to succeed in life, but sometimes it won't be exactly like you picture it. Doesn't mean that you failed. It just means that you can't stop somethings from happening no matter how much to try.

This is like with the Mass Effect 3 ending. While I like the endings I do wish we were given the choice of a super-mega happy ending. Especially when this game was all based around choice, it would be cool to just have that option to gain the endings.

Exactly.

Edited by TerrorKing, 24 October 2012 - 12:56 AM.

[James S Cassidy]

Hyporcrisy means saying one thing and then doing another or advocating certain beliefs and then going against them. If I told my hypothetical son that he wasn't allowed to eat chocolate because it was unhealthy and it would make him fat and I was then caught secretly eating chocolate, then that would make me a hypocrite.

So what you're saying is that if people take offense to yoru post or if they try to counter it, then that only proves that you're right? If that's the case, then I don't really agree with that. To me, it seems like your basic argument is "First you want A to happen and not B and then when A finally happens then you instead want B to happen". This is what I would simply define as changing one's opinon and that is not necessarily the same.

I know...what hypocrisy is. I know what the definition is. I know how to apply it to the world and how to use it in a sentence. No offense, but you are starting to frustrate me with this coming off like I have no idea what I am talking about when I do know what I am talking about. I know how to apply the word. I brought up this conversation with many people asking if this is hypocrisy...even language majors...and by definition it is hypocrisy with the examples I have given. I even showed them the thread and asked only in practice without being biased.

No, what my argument is is this: "First you want A to happen and not B and then when A finally happens then you instead want B to happen, while still believing that A is the best choice fully aware that doing B was going to take away from A." That is what makes it hypocrisy and not a contradiction nor a change in ideas. A change in idea would be if you thought A was better, but then realize B would be better looking at the evidence.

If the person wasn't thinking about it and did not realize it, then if they knew they were wrong or being hypocritical I would get a response like this "You're right, I wasn't thinking ahead. I did say that. Let me rephrase myself because my views have changed." Of course, how would I know if someone's views have change or not unless they specifically said they were? This is why I used generalized terms to apply to anyone who thinks in this logic, including myself if I thought like that. The reason why I brought up names was not to accuse them of being as such, but to bring up citations so you know where my logic was coming from. Not from my own head, but from other posters who many agree with and created great logical sense on this board.

To put into practice: "Naruto is the man character and people believe this. However, the person wants other characters to have development whether it be to make the villain stronger backstory wise or to give other characters a chance to shine. As soon as this occurs, the same person complains that Naruto doesn't get enough attention, but still believes that other characters need fleshing out fully aware that that attention needed to be taken away from Naruto in order for other characters to get the development they need." I can't explain this any clearer.

And no, it doesn't mean you are part of the group if you disagree. Just like what you are doing now. This does NOT make you a hypocrite because you think I am wrong. What makes the logic apply to you is IF you got offended by it because only people guilty of it get offended by it. Understand? I even brought this point with other friends and they got my meaning. I know you know the difference between a disagreement of views and being offended by views.

Some times the simple state of wanting it, creates it.

I don't know. I guess my primary argument is that things aren't always black and white and that things need to be judged on a case by case basis. The reason why I quoted you was not because I was mad about what you wrote, but more because I wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

Yet you need black and white to describe the gray. Not everything falls into black and white, but not everything falls in gray either. Sometimes some things are exactly as they are whether you agree or disagree. I could give examples, but they are not appropriate to this board

With that being said, I made my post to be about a grey area, but people accuse it of being black and white. So it is a two way street.

My point was that "fate" is usually defined as something that you cannot change no matter how hard you try. I know that I have exams here in January, so I guess that that is my "fate" if I wan't to finish my education. However, whether I pass or fail is not a question of faith, because that is something that I can actually influence.

So I guess my conclusion is that "fate" is something that you absolutely cannot change no matter how hard you try, while everything that you actually can change if you try isn't.

The bigger question is, what kind of situations apply to this? Unless you already knew, there is no way to tell what is fate and what isn't. Unless you had a time machine and went back in time to try and change the course of history only to realize it was going to happen anyway, that would be fate. Unfortunately, there is no way to know this.

The even bigger question is, would you accept it even if it was?

Want a real life example? A personal real life example I have is, I lost someone because of a stupid mistake. I have come to a conclusion that I shouldn't blame myself for it. Not because it really wasn't my fault, because it was my fault nor because I am heartless or have no guilt. It's because I know even if I blamed myself, it wouldn't bring them back. It wouldn't make the situation better. So why bother? Torturing myself doesn't change it.

I am hoping Naruto would find the same logic if it came down to Sasuke dying.

[TerrorKing]

I know...what hypocrisy is. I know what the definition is. I know how to apply it to the world and how to use it in a sentence. No offense, but you are starting to frustrate me with this coming off like I have no idea what I am talking about when I do know what I am talking about. I know how to apply the word. I brought up this conversation with many people asking if this is hypocrisy...even language majors...and by definition it is hypocrisy with the examples I have given. I even showed them the thread and asked only in practice without being biased.

Well that definetaly wasn't my intention at all. However, as you're probably already aware off, it's not always easy to spot intent over the internet. I wasn't trying to annoy you or talk down to you. I was simply using a concrete example so that we both had a common frame of reference.

No, what my argument is is this: "First you want A to happen and not B and then when A finally happens then you instead want B to happen, while still believing that A is the best choice fully aware that doing B was going to take away from A." That is what makes it hypocrisy and not a contradiction nor a change in ideas. A change in idea would be if you thought A was better, but then realize B would be better looking at the evidence.

I see. However, a change in ideas isn't necessarily always based on logic. Sometimes it all comes down to simple wants and needs.

For example.

"I wan't a banana."

5 minutes later.

"Now I wan't an apple."

If the person wasn't thinking about it and did not realize it, then if they knew they were wrong or being hypocritical I would get a response like this "You're right, I wasn't thinking ahead. I did say that. Let me rephrase myself because my views have changed." Of course, how would I know if someone's views have change or not unless they specifically said they were? This is why I used generalized terms to apply to anyone who thinks in this logic, including myself if I thought like that. The reason why I brought up names was not to accuse them of being as such, but to bring up citations so you know where my logic was coming from. Not from my own head, but from other posters who many agree with and created great logical sense on this board.

Well to me, if one week someone says "I want A." and then the next week they said "I want B.", then I see that as an indication that their views have changed. All in all, I see the weekly chapter threads as more of an update of people's thoughts and desires in terms of both character development and the overall direction of the story. After all, the story of Naruto is still a work in progress and so people's thoughts and desires are bound to change.

To put into practice: "Naruto is the man character and people believe this. However, the person wants other characters to have development whether it be to make the villain stronger backstory wise or to give other characters a chance to shine. As soon as this occurs, the same person complains that Naruto doesn't get enough attention, but still believes that other characters need fleshing out fully aware that that attention needed to be taken away from Naruto in order for other characters to get the development they need." I can't explain this any clearer.

This is true. You can't have it both ways. I'm not always equally excited about a certain character getting development/screentime, but unless it really annoys me, I'm just gonna let it be and either recognize that it might be necessary for the story or just hope that eventually the story will give focus to a character that I am invested in.

And no, it doesn't mean you are part of the group if you disagree. Just like what you are doing now. This does NOT make you a hypocrite because you think I am wrong. What makes the logic apply to you is IF you got offended by it because only people guilty of it get offended by it. Understand? I even brought this point with other friends and they got my meaning. I know you know the difference between a disagreement of views and being offended by views.

Some times the simple state of wanting it, creates it.

Yes I know the difference. My point was what if you get offended on others behalf? Like if someone says something demeaning about a certain group of people and you then get offended, not because you're part of that group, but simply because it rubs you the wrong way.

Yet you need black and white to describe the gray. Not everything falls into black and white, but not everything falls in gray either. Sometimes some things are exactly as they are whether you agree or disagree. I could give examples, but they are not appropriate to this board

With that being said, I made my post to be about a grey area, but people accuse it of being black and white. So it is a two way street.

True. Not everything is black and white, but they are.

The bigger question is, what kind of situations apply to this? Unless you already knew, there is no way to tell what is fate and what isn't. Unless you had a time machine and went back in time to try and change the course of history only to realize it was going to happen anyway, that would be fate. Unfortunately, there is no way to know this.

The even bigger question is, would you accept it even if it was?

The only answer I can come up with right now is to just live and then take it from there. Sometimes effort by itself just isn't enough, but at least you tried.

Want a real life example? A personal real life example I have is, I lost someone because of a stupid mistake. I have come to a conclusion that I shouldn't blame myself for it. Not because it really wasn't my fault, because it was my fault nor because I am heartless or have no guilt. It's because I know even if I blamed myself, it wouldn't bring them back. It wouldn't make the situation better. So why bother? Torturing myself doesn't change it.

I am hoping Naruto would find the same logic if it came down to Sasuke dying.

Again, you should just live your life, by always moving forward while still keeping the past in mind. That way, you can use that experience to hopefully keep you from making similar mistakes in the future.

As for Naruto, as long as he tried, then that's good enough.

[Nefertieh]

Surprisingly, Sephiroth is not as popular as you might think. Yeah he has a popular following, but some like Kefka more than Sephiroth because they deem him more a villain. Also, Madara is a political villain...umm Aizen is a political villain. The Nazi were used in Hellsing which were political villains. What do you consider the villains in Evangelion are? Such as the Angels, Gendo? Gendo seems to be one of those insane villains who acted as a good guy just so he could gain what he wanted. How does he compare to Kabuto?

Sephiroth has always been the most popular character among official and unofficial polls. He doesn't have a political agenda, he simply went mad.

American media has villains who want power or wealth or to take over the world. How many villains in manga share the same viewpoint? I am not sure if Kabuto is similar to Sephiroth. Yeah they both had "mothers," but Sephiroth went insane cause he found out he was nothing more than an experiment based of Jenova. Kabuto just killed a women who he called his mother. Not really his actual mother. What worse? That's up to you to decide.

No, Sephiroth thought Jenova was his mother, he never knew anything about Lucrezia. Then identity crisis came in and he went mad. In either case, I was saying that Sephiroth had a more complex than Kefka, who was entertaining but ultimately not as complex.

Not every villain in all American media is like the Joker from Batman. Joker is such a unique villain in that his back story changes depending on the writer, but a common thing is that he became insane due to chemical exposure. The Heath Ledger Joker being different, but not every villain is like the Joker. If they were, Joker wouldn't be as interesting.

Obito seems more like Mister Freeze from Batman. Does whatever he can to regain the love of his life back.

And sometimes, "sympathetic villains" are boring after a while. Sephiroth is claimed by some that he is about as interesting as "mud."

I never said all villains in American media weren't sympathetic -- see my previous comment. I'm saying its a common trope that Kishimoto himself said he was not going to follow.

Not all villains are based on American views either. Look at Hitler from Germany who is seen as a world wide villai, look at Joseph Stalin who is seen as a Russian villain, or Mussolini who is the Italian villain. So I don't think it is quite right to say that this is just an "American view point," because a villain can exist from anywhere.

The political views I'm talking about are Bush-era "the enemy has his hand on a nuclear weapon" stance. I never said the villains had an American point of view, I'm saying a story where the enemy is demonised sounds too much like political propaganda.

But look at other manga that are just as successful and who have villains that are that insane without real sympathetic reasons for it. There are plenty in other manga like I pointed out, so it is not just an Americanized view point. Like I said, Aizen from Bleach and Knives from Trigun are also successful villains who have this construed visions of the world yet have no real sympathetic back story to cover it.

Knives became insane because he found out about the plants and what humans did to them. Vash learned of the same so why did Knives freak out and Vash didn't? They didn't grow up differently and they had the same influences. Aizen for example is one where he was a guy who just wanted power. He has no real sympathetic backstory and he was just a villain who wanted power.

Ok, but like my previous comment said, Kishimoto doesn't need to make his villains sympathetic, but he does. And that's why Bleach isn't as popular.

And I also think a confusion is in when it is said "Insanity." Not all villains can be considered "clinically insane," but still have insane tendencies. I guess any view where a villain does something that many deem unnecessary is considered "insane". As I said not all villains are like Joker even in American media standards. Just because we deem them insane doesn't mean they are.

You also got villains from other media such as The Master from Doctor Who or the Daleks. You also got numerous James Bond villains who behave at may different wavelengths.

Nope, there is no confusion. Insane simply means without reason or logic, not necesarrily sociopathic.

In the Naruto Manga we have heroes in a wide spectrum from grey to white. For the villain we don't really have that wide of range and most of them are in the greyer areas. I want a villain who is the darkest on the scale and I don't have to feel sympathy for them whether they had a tragic past or not. It would be nice to have at least one villain who is like the Joker because it gives a sense of variety.

As for sympathetic villains being more interesting in the long run, I think that is dependent on what the writer has them do. The most interesting villain to write, that is hard to sound convincing, is a villain who does the worse things and think they are the good guys. I mean actually believe they are the good guys while the good guys are perceived as the villains. Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2 is one such villain.

"You're Insane"
"I thought I was a Pisces."
-Vicki Vale to Joker.

This manga is about understanding your enemies, and Kishimoto has said it himself that this isn't a typical good vs evil story. That kind of story is something you'd expect from a Disney movie or political propaganda. The final villain will probably be Sasuke, and we all know he's considered a 'sympathetic' character.

If you're going to have a villain who is just evil, first of all you'll run out of character development, and second of all it would defeat the purpose of Naruto's "special power" to empathise with people. Otherwise Naruto will just be a guy who solves his problems with violence - just like his enemies.

[Phantom_999]

You're right about the kind of villain I want, Phantom. Thank you for putting the words into my mouth. A villain that sticks to what they believe until the end is what I want. That being said, Naruto doesn't have to fail in defeating them. Of course he'll defeat them. I just need some difference here, is all. Some more variety. That's why I would prefer Obito not to be redeemed. It would be very refreshing if he actually stuck to his actions until the very end, along with Madara.

Or Kishi could bring Kabuto back, have him take back what Orochimaru took from him, and have him take over again, with the final confrontation being Naruto vs. Kabuto, the two people who were capable of surpassing their masters and becoming perfect sages, facing each other until death in a battle for the ninja world as we know it.

I can dream, can't I?


As for the other points, I'm not saying that it was illogical for Gaara or Nagato to change their choices after Naruto talked to them. Not at all. I'm just saying that it's getting very repetitive, yaknow? Now maybe he's trying to make a theme here of "everyone can be persuaded to be good", but that's pushing the boundaries just a bit. We all know that many people can't be reasoned with, no matter how much we may try. There's always exceptions, and I'd like very much to see more of these exceptions in this manga.

By the way, most villains became good in Dragonball? Hm. Well, I didn't read the original Dragonball, but in DBZ the major baddies didn't turn good (except Vegeta, of course). Cell, Evil Buu, and Freiza stayed their course until their bitter end. And this is what I'm asking for in Naruto: a major baddie who stays their course until the very end.

Again, Obito's redemption may not be illogical. It may make perfect sense. At this point, again, it's just a case of irritating repetition, for the reason I stated above. (I don't want to repeat myself too much here, do I? Or I'll become what I'm complaining about. Ha. Irony!)


Oh, before I forget, great post James. Even though some of it I do find myself disagreeing with (there's not much that I do), it was a brilliant post. Well explained and thorough.


Didn't Sasuke kill black Zetsu a while ago, before encountering Itachi?

And Tobi Zetsu...good question.

Yeah I did state that it is a bit dull, cause it is a typical "resolve" so to speak and I 'd like for it to be mixed up a little too yeah. Watching a villain that dies for their beliefs is what makes a PERFECT villain in my view. LIKE BANE!!! (The Dark Knight Rises version) And yeah I think I was thinking about earlier DB when I said villains get redeemed, Although Goku did change Kid Buu into a good human being if you call that redemption.

This manga is about understanding your enemies, and Kishimoto has said it himself that this isn't a typical good vs evil story. That kind of story is something you'd expect from a Disney movie or political propaganda. The final villain will probably be Sasuke, and we all know he's considered a 'sympathetic' character.

If you're going to have a villain who is just evil, first of all you'll run out of character development, and second of all it would defeat the purpose of Naruto's "special power" to empathise with people. Otherwise Naruto will just be a guy who solves his problems with violence - just like his enemies.

Indeed It is, and I applaud you for that. But Having a A villain That does evil for evil's sake would do well as a last story arc I think, a force in complete opposition to everything Naruto stands for. Well If it moves past Madara. And to your point, violence is the only way to deal with Evil that won't be changed as well, so it's actually a proper balance of talking things out as well as fighting. The key is to assess when it is best to do one or the other if you can't have both.

Edited by Phantom_999, 24 October 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[Strangelove]

Piccolo already destroyed the moon.

That Piccolo.