Suisei no Gargantia Episode 9 Discussion

Darklight0303 said:
Chamber is the final boss and he will rule all.

Zyrusticae said:
The only time they reference the human genome is during a straight-up propaganda piece, so I'm not going to put much stock in that.

Their use of the term evolution is so loose that you really can't get anything out of it other than "we are overcoming our limitations as a species", whether that is through bionic fusion or what-have-you.

I was using that specifically to explain the humanoid-looking squid girl as an alternative to them somehow modifying her existing body. Of course there is no evidence of that, but then there is also no evidence that they actually transformed her old body to create her.

It doesn't matter. The context is clear and obvious. There is nothing to argue about here because they are obviously referring to evolution in a general sense and not the biological "gradual change over hundreds of generations" definition.
Arguing semantics like this is a sign of a small mind. I really suggest you drop the subject.

Zeally said:
lol @ people bashing science fiction genre by comparing it to real life scientific paradigms

katsucats said:
They're supposed to. That's why it's science fiction.

Fai said:
You do realize that by that logic every single work by Asimov or Clarke is a trash?

Dictionary.com Unabridged said:
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.

World English Dictionary said:
— n
a. a literary genre that makes imaginative use of scientific knowledge or conjecture

Merriam-Webster said:
fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

EdenBaggins said:
They pulled the exact same plot twist of Shinsekai Yori. Didn't find it so surprising for that reason.

katsucats said:
I'll let you make that judgment, but the whole point of science fiction is fiction that take place in a world with similar elements to ours, with laws of physics similar to ours. Fiction that make no attempts to establish this connection is not science fiction.

XartaX said:
But you cannot change the overall big structure of an adult human being. It just doesn't work. The human genes don't code for that. One way this kinda thing would be possible, would be if you recoded the DNA, basically REGREW the whole freaking body and just transplanted the brain into the new body (and this is freaking far-fetched enough), but it's been shown that that this clearly isn't the case. You cannot alter the biological structure of an adult human organism to this degree.

Fai said:
Thanks for proving my point with definitions from dictionaries.

You DO realize that they go AGAINST your argument, right, since most of them define scifi as story that focuses on effect fictional or real science has on characters and that NONE of those descriptions say it requires science to be accurate?

SCIFI does not require science accuracy. Hard Scifi usually has it, but its not required, or otherwise Clarke's transhumanic ideas and floating black obelisks would be counted as trash, yet they are not(since Clarke is one of the definite SCIFI authors to ever live)

Fai said:
Suspension of disbelief NEVER applies to technobabble. The term mainly is used to define the immersion and logic-breaking moments in character reactions(character reactions have to fit the character development and character psychological profile) or ground-rules of real life logic, unless the very point of the fictional work is to showcase why it goes against them.

Fai said:
So If Ledo suddenly started break-dancing, that would be OOC and beyond suspension of disbelief. If Chamber morphed into pikachu, that would require even bigger level of suspension of disbelief. Fictional parts of lore usually have absolutely no effect onto immersion, since reader has to accept it as part of worldbuilding(otherwise we should have just walked away from Space Odyssey, the moment a giant stone obelisk appeared?). The "Science changed in thousands of years" is a feasible explanation for all of this whinery that is going on.

scruffykiwi said:

Actually you can. It just requires that you manipulate gene expression during embryo development. There are an awful lot of genes that are NEVER expressed in humans, as well as numerous interactions between genes and even within genes. Alot of people overestimate the difference between organisms genomes.

Ajunky said:

I can already see you getting chewed up due to the fact that he is talking about modifying fully grown humans.

Which I wouldn't say is impossible, but by principle it cannot be done with embryonic gene manipulation.

Personally, I prefer thinking something is possible until proven impossible. Other people seem to go with considering everything impossible until proven possible. I would advise to leave it at that.

katsucats said:
[Did you miss the part in the story where the Hideauze have been waging war with the humans for presumably hundreds of years?

I ask again: What is the relevance of sentience to the situation?

What is the relevance?

katsucats said:
That sentience is irrelevant is the argument, your moral inconsistency is the conclusion.

But in space, we know that they are mortal enemies of humankind.

No, I bet most people are not so easily manipulated by cheap, propagandist infomercials.

Using the "little girl" symbolism evokes a disgusted laugh out of anyone with even a yellow belt in drama and storytelling. Such cliches are so obvious that it's borderline offensive.

StopDropAndBowl said:

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/vulture-stalking-a-child/

That is one of the most famous pictures ever taken, and has been responsible for the gathering of millions of dollars in charitable donations. Just because you are not moved by the plight of a starving child doesn't mean the rest of the world shares that rather disgusting viewpoint.

katsucats said:
There's a difference between being apathetic to starving children and being apathetic to pictures of starving children, which are undoubtedly taken specifically to evoke this response and garner attention and donations. Is it disgusting to resist such exploitation? Get off your moral high horse. Only a fool is compelled to feel whatever someone else tells him to.

No, I bet most people are not so easily manipulated by cheap, propagandist infomercials.

StopDropAndBowl said:
Now, you can go ahead and say that Gargantia hasn't done a good job at setting up the emotional manipulation; but that is a personal opinion, and most watchers disagree. Most found the scene to be both disturbing and tragic.

Smoofie said:
Spoiler spoiler spoiler!!

katsucats said:
Drama is emotionally manipulative, but the point of good drama is, oddly enough, to manipulate the audience without letting them be aware that they are being manipulated. Gargantia has as much subtlety as a flaming homosexual stereotype at religious camp.

Kyube said:
Why do I get the feeling that this anime exceeds my worst expectations?

Takuan_Soho said:


Agreed, it is very similar to fanservice. It's pandering, but as long as they do a good job at sliding it into a series you can just enjoy it and if really skillful it adds to the experience, but when they shove it down your face it is difficult not to feel that you are being treated condescendingly.

It isn't just the drama that has lacked subtlety, the fanservice and even the humor has been a tad obvious.

As for the spoiler wth? Samurai Chamber?

Smoofie said:

skudoops said:


I don't think you realize what they were going for if you think they wasted the previous 8.

Baconzombie said:


They were trying to make Ledo more human by exposing him to the culture of Gargantia so that his reaction in this episode would be believable. Additionally, they tried to clear up things about the situation he was in while trying to expand on the setting.

Problem is that a lot of that time was spent on useless almost slice of life-like episodes, and the fact that they turned it serious so suddenly is classic Urobuchi plot twist. That isn't a sign of "OMG IMPECCABLE WRITING 10/10"; it's a sign of "I have no idea how to properly plan a show, so let's just dump all of the info we need to in one episode so that the shock factor can 'surprise' everyone"

That was what I was getting towards. Please inform me if you think otherwise and that Urobuchi's works are obviously 2deep4me to comprehend.

Ajunky said:
I can already see you getting chewed up due to the fact that he is talking about modifying fully grown humans.

Which I wouldn't say is impossible, but by principle it cannot be done with embryonic gene manipulation.

Personally, I prefer thinking something is possible until proven impossible. Other people seem to go with considering everything impossible until proven possible. I would advise to leave it at that.

linchpin said:

I've got nothing to add. I agree with you completely. Are you a writer? If not you definitely should be! You'd show them how it's done PROPERLY.

katsucats said:
I do speak for myself when I say Gargantia has done a horrid job so far at setting up emotional manipulation; it's quite sad that you feel compelled to validate your opinion with an appeal to popularity

as if you are somehow privy to the emotional involvement of the entire Gargantia audience, and they've set you up as the symbolic spokesperson.

It's just another case of "You're entitled to your own opinions as long as you don't fight my opinions facts."

Drama is emotionally manipulative, but the point of good drama is, oddly enough, to manipulate the audience without letting them be aware that they are being manipulated. Gargantia has as much subtlety as a flaming homosexual stereotype at religious camp.

StopDropAndBowl said:

Learn the fallacy before you try identifying it. If I has said: "You are wrong. It is a good story because everyone thinks so" then I would be using the appeal to popularity. I did nothing of the sort. I didn't say you were wrong at all. I said that if you find the emotional manipulation to be cheap or badly set up, than that is a personal opinion, not a fact. And then I added that most people who have watched the episode disagree. At no point have I made any objective statement to it's quality, and at no point have I justified my arguments with an appeal to popularity.


The fact that 86.45% of the people on this site who rated the episode clicked: "Loved it" is a hint that the majority saw that scene as poignant. Further, the fact that the show is rated relatively highly (over 60% giving it a score of 8 or higher) means that the majority who have watched it appear to think that it has done a good job so far...


You're perfectly entitled to your own opinions, just as I am perfectly entitled to think those opinions are crazy.

We disagree fundamentally with the purpose of drama then. At no point am I unaware of the emotional manipulation that occurs in any drama or comedy. When I watch Shakespeare or hear Beethoven I am well aware of the fact that they are trying to manipulate my emotions, and am well aware of how and when it's occurring.

Subtlety is fine, but it is not the end all be all. There is little that is subtle about the opening fanfare of the 5th symphony, but it is still one of the (if not the) most recognizable pieces of music in existence. There is great subtlety in some parts of the Ninth symphony, to it's credit. Subtlety, just as boldness, has it's place and time and is effective when used only at those specific times. Emily Dickinson's poetry is often very subtle, and she is widely considered to have been a great poet. The poetry of Walt Whitman is often anything but subtle; it is full of glaring, broad strokes, vigorously slashed across the page. He is also considered to be a great poet.

Gargantia has had some subtle moments. In fact, it sometimes seems as if the real subtleties are being missed by it's most vocal critics.

Darklight0303 said:

I clicked loved it cause the plot showed up and there was violence that was long overdue. Emotions had jack shit to do with it and I am sure I wasn't the only one.

StopDropAndBowl said:

Okay, but do you honestly think you are in the majority, or the minority, in seeing that scene as cheap and overblown? I think it would be quite a stretch to say that the majority saw it the way katsucats saw it.

Baconzombie said:

That was what I was getting towards. Please inform me if you think otherwise and that Urobuchi's works are obviously 2deep4me to comprehend.

Darklight0303 said:


Maybe not but we can definitely put a dent in that over 80% figure you were touting as an argument.

StopDropAndBowl said:
Okay, but less than 2% of viewers who rated this episode picked the options "Didn't like it" or "Hated it." Those are pretty good indications that my statement is not far off (that the majority saw the scene as poignant). The specific numbers are irrelevant. Most people like the show, most people loved the episode, most posts about both have been positive. The people who don't like the show are in the minority, the people who didn't like the episode are a tiny fraction, almost statistically irrelevant (out of 488 people, only 9 did not like it). That doesn't mean that it is an objectively good show, or that the episode is objectively good, only that the majority is enjoying it and the majority enjoyed this episode.

I think if most people saw the scene as contrived it would be reflected a lot more in the rating.

Darklight0303 said:

But the point is I am not questioning if people enjoyed it. I am questioning if they enjoyed it for the reasons you used as an argument. The emotional aspect.

StopDropAndBowl said:
Obviously there is no way of telling for sure without polling everyone. I think it is a reasonable assumption that if most people are enjoying a story, they are enjoying the emotional elements of the story. There hasn't been much mecha or action in the show thus far, and the romance has been pretty light. It's had some funny moments, but it's very far from a comedy. The emotional aspect has been the main focus of the show. Usually if people aren't connecting with the main focus of a story, it shows up in the rating: they rate it poorly.

It would be a bigger stretch to say that most people saw that scene as contrived and cliche and not poignant at all, but still rated the episode highly, than it would to say that most people liked the episode therefore most people saw the scene as appropriately tragic and effective. (Especially since that scene was the climax of the episode and what the entire show has been building up to)