 |
|
| | >>> Click
here to download Final Fantasy Ringtones |
 |
#65  It's not that I hate it, it's just that it doesn't seem completely plausible. But neither do the other two endings. What I believe is different between this and the other theories though, is that people can interpret the ending on how they see it. R=U on the other hand just seems a little bit of a stranger theory because of the time gap between Rinoa's time and Ulti's time. |
08-17-2006, 07:42 PM
| 
|
| |
 | Yeah I know, I tried to phrase my point better to avoid that response... guess I failed  . I know the text IS relevant, I just wanted to highlight that ignoring the text, the summoning of Griever from Squall's mind isn't actually that logical. Because the text is there (and it IS vague), it can be taken for granted that the mind explanation is completely reasonable, which arguably isn't the case.Oh and those things on Adel's back look a lot like wings to me. I just wondered if that was an avenue worth venturing down, guess not  .finalfantasyguy4ever: licence answered most of your points, but to add: "if ulti was rhinoa why would she attack rhinoa in the final batttle it would be like her attacking her self" Yes it would. The assumption being that she doesn't recognise herself. Rinoa can not die unless you get a game over, so there is no way for a paradox to arise. I think that it is generally taken for granted that something along those lines occurs. It doesn't exactly 'support' R=U, but it does at least help it seem less abstract an idea as Ultimecia had to start off normal looking (and arguably with a different name), R=U merely posits that the normal person was in fact Rinoa. EDIT: Three whole posts since I started typing! I can see why the theory gets stick, and I have to say it appealed to me far more a couple of years ago, when I preferred stories a little darker. Now I quite like a happy ending . I'm mainly defending the theory now because I am yet to be convinced that it is made unlikely by the game, and I think it gets an unfair amount of stick. I would however agree that it is very unlikely given Ultimania. Arguments in this thread against it have certainly been stronger (or at least better phrased) than ones I remember from past threads though.Last edited by PhoenixAsh; 08-17-2006 at 07:55 PM. |
|
08-17-2006, 07:50 PM
|
|
| Banned |
All the Sorceresses had wings and horn. Be they clothing by design, ethereal representation, or physical mutation. Edea had a headdress or mutation of her skull for her horns, and she wore a veiled cape in the style like wings. Adel, also wore a horn style headress or physical mutation, and also wore a wing-motiff that hovered behind her seemingly 'attached'. Rinoa... Though she does not have a horn motiff, she does have Ethereal Wings, when using the Sorceress Power. And Finally, all the "Succession of Witches" have had the wings and horns and evolved through time (be it transition of Rinoa or not) to the Ultimate End of the Successsion: Ultimecia. So, all Sorceresses have had and/or will have the horns/wings be they real or not, are a representation of a Sorceress... By what I can tell... BTW: How the hell did Adel get so... Huge? More later... Last edited by Pharoh Amon Khan III; 08-17-2006 at 09:10 PM. |
|
08-17-2006, 08:34 PM
|
|
| Banned | I see...
What I meant in my questioning is not the validity of the 'interpetation' but this was the immediate response for those that had just beaten the game. All had a different interpertation more or less like the ones I mentioned. It was like the multiple interpetation of the ending of FFVII. Everyone had 'theories' but the bottomline is they were looking for solidity in their interpetation of the ending with like-minded people. And when questioned by their belief some willingly accepted the new ideals, while others stead-fast rejected them and found clues and 'facts' to hold their ground. Most who are vehemtly against the R=U theory seem to not have the same views on how the story ended, but just that R=U is... to put it bluntly: Blashphemy. Almost like "Virginia" trying to find proof that is a Santa Claus... Let me give an personal example: I never saw "Passion of the Christ". I felt I didn't need to. Most of the people I met that had seen it, repeated every word I had heard before. "It will change you life."; "The Jews Murdered Christ!", and on on... My reaction to the statement of 'murder' had me respond with.. "The Jew's did not murder Christ." I was often met with confusion or rejection with that statement, but I continued. "Technically it happened the way it was suppose to have happened. How else did you want him to die for your sins?" Now my point is... Is that I just changed their general interpetation of a movie... Some were angered and accused me of atheism; others were so taken 'out of their box' or 'unplugged' that they stopped and thought turning away the general concensus and regaining individual thought again... I wondered why the anger versus the calm? Please... Tell me.... What was your interpetation of the ending? Last edited by Pharoh Amon Khan III; 08-17-2006 at 09:11 PM. |
|
08-17-2006, 08:48 PM
|
|
| | Phoenix Although I can agree that "feel" is perhaps a somewhat ambiguous word in this context and not the most appropriate word ("mind" or something would have been better), it is far less a stretch to say that it really refers to Squall's minds/thoughts than to say that Griever came from somewhere completely different. And given the two choices, I'm rather prone to picking the one which is more reasonable and much less of a stretch (I wouldn't personally call it a stretch at all though). As for the translation, well, we don't really know the first thing about that. Maybe there was confusion, or they thought the scan info was enough to convey the same meaning, or they were also puzzled by the word "feeling". Maybe it was a bit of bad writing by the Japanese scripters. Who knows? At the end of the day, we're better of sticking to the Japanese bit as far as I'm concerned. As aisle said, and you agreed, the text IS important. Of course it wouldn't make much sense without the text because then Griever would come out of nowhere, but as it is, we have at least a reasonable case to make based on the text. You may think it's daft, and that it wasn't made a big enough deal of in the game to warrant it becoming a final boss (I agree on the latter), but hey, Square aren't always perfect (not nearly always really). They could have made it more clear, but were perhaps a bit sloppy. However, upon critical analysis, it is clear enough that the most plausible explanation is that Griever was summoned from Squalls mind because Squall considers it to be the strongest thing he knows of. If anything, the superiority of this explanation becomes apparent by the fact that there really aren't any alternate explanations which don't require huge baseless assumptions or simply are huge stretches. As for why Ultimecia would only summon Squall's worst fear, well, he is the leader, and if you go by the idea that she was aware of her fate of dying at Squall's hand (a theory supported by the game and the Ultimania, as stated previously), it makes perfect sense to single him out. Even without that theory as a reference, it makes sense simply because Squall is the leader of the group. Finally, the question why she could junction herself to him isn't really relevant; she's a sorceress, she can do lots of strange things =P I still have to disagree though. TC stuff makes some stuff not outlandish, but I can't see how it lessens the outlandishness of R=U in any way. PAK: I don't know what experiences you have, but I "slam" the theory that Squall dies as much as R=U. Of course, the difference between interpretations on the ending and R=U is that the oddity of TC itself will always leave room for a certain amount of leeway. R=U however does not have that benefit as it is examined as something relevant throughout the ENTIRE game, instead of just the ending. Because of the fact that the theory then simply isn't implied throughout the game, it will thus be called invalid quicker than most theories examining only the ending. EDIT: Of course, a lot of animosity has been built up against the theory because many less patient people start stereotyping all R=U defendants as being unwilling to see the facts and that they are blinded by their near religious belief in it. Unfortunately, that's true for some people, and has led to some unfortunate stereotpying. Oh, and please, before posting your full essay here, I would strongly recommend reading the referred to FAQ. Not that it's the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but if your essay merely repeats what's in there without the counterarguments or ignores everything in there alltogether, then your essay will be pretty pointless and really just a waste of your time, because I'll only respond with "Read the FAQ". Last edited by Sir Bahamut; 08-17-2006 at 09:45 PM. |
|
08-17-2006, 09:28 PM
|
|
| Banned  | I think we have the right to expeculate as much as we want both the defenders of the theory and the offenders of the theory. Those who do not which to participate donīt need to post in this thread and can keep theirv thoughts to themselfes. |
|
08-17-2006, 10:57 PM
|
|
