Anime & Manga News

Third Season of Queen's Blade Announced

by dtshyk
Oct 22, 2011 12:26 AM | 137 Comments
According to Hobby Japan magazine, a new TV series of Queen's Blade was announced. The title is "Queen's Blade Rebellion". An introduction story of "Rebellion" will be animated in previously announced OVA.

After the 30th Queen's Blade, Claudette becomes the queen. At first, she governs the country well by abolishing the heavy taxes and the aristocracy. However, her reign turns into terrorism by power and the Queen's Blade is repealed. The Princess Knight of Rebellion, Annelotte organizes a rebel army and declares war against Claudette.

Source: Scan of Hobby Japan

Queen's Blade: Rebellion on MAL

20 of 137 Comments Recent Comments

LOL, I have an openly gay friend who loves Queen's Blade. Oddly enough, even many gay men seem fond of breasts. :P Tho you could say that just makes puts them on the bisexuality sliding scale.

I just hope AT-X continues not to censor all the good stuff ... I refuse to watch censored ecchi, especially since they often censor out any indication of what's even going on. Queen's Blade without the gratuitous nudity and clothing damage is kinda pointless, since then you have to rely on plot and characterization, not two things QB is particularly known for. Unless you count Nanael, who rocks.

Apr 2, 2012 10:58 PM by Blind_Guardian

I'm openly gay and I simply adore Queen's Blade. Can't wait for this season to start!

Apr 1, 2012 9:24 PM by LeoHamasaki

Man this reminds me of how Ikkitousen keeps coming up with seasons after seasons. If only they can do this for some legit hentai eroge that is more fap worthy.

Mar 20, 2012 10:05 PM by Tachii

I like boobies.

Mar 20, 2012 6:55 PM by Mormegil

Yarodomo said:
jmal said:
Yarodomo said:
You wrote a whole page of philosophy over 1 line?

Ah, there we go, the "discussion" has finally reached the terminal stage: where the inability to address any open points is covered up behind a flippant "lol u care too much" dismissal (ignoring that you clearly care enough to reply over and over and over yourself) and lack of substance. And a side order of "get over yourself", as if engaging in an honest (well honest from my side) debate somehow equates to narcissism.

I expected no less, but thanks for closing it out finally.

I can still go on if you'd like, i mean your philosophy IS amusing afterall.

care enough? Well i'm certainly not obssesed with homosexuals to the point of desperately arguing with pointless and invalid remark as backup, nice try though.

Congratulations, you just lost.

No matter what your opinion is on anything, the "LOL WHY U CARE SO MUCH" argument is only presented after you realize that you, indeed, have no more valid points and are now attempting to troll your opponent into submission.

Kind of like the "Patriotism" argument the US gov't uses...

Mar 20, 2012 3:10 PM by Wicked_Glory

Yarodomo said:
You wrote a whole page of philosophy over 1 line?

Ah, there we go, the "discussion" has finally reached the terminal stage: where the inability to address any open points is covered up behind a flippant "lol u care too much" dismissal (ignoring that you clearly care enough to reply over and over and over yourself) and lack of substance. And a side order of "get over yourself", as if engaging in an honest (well honest from my side) debate somehow equates to narcissism.

I expected no less, but thanks for closing it out finally.

Mar 20, 2012 9:25 AM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
They have nothing to fear if they don't flaunt it.

This is always the last line of defense in this argument, and I t think it has some severe flaws. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" didn't work in the military and doesn't work in private life. I get why people disapproving of homosexuality find this argument so appealing (you get to avoid dealing with it at all), but fundamentally, it relies upon forcing someone to deny and hold private, at risk of personal harm should they even inadvertantly be outed, the most basic aspects of their world. Things that are openly shared, celebrated, and flaunted by other people who are no different in any way but sexual orientation. It's telling them they will never have any public role models, never see any entertainment including people like them, never have any legal recognition or protections, never have any basic human respect for who they are. None of which bothers you, I gather, but it's easy for people not to mind when it's not affecting them.

In my view, it's only just to ask someone to mentally/emotionally sacrifice if it's for a very, very clear and present greater good. I mean on the level of, say... If there were a community of people who (no matter what they tried) killed anyone who heard their voice, then the greater good would be served by forcing isolation or a vow of silence on them. It would be harsh, but their affect on the rest of society would be too damaging, too severe, if they were given full freedom. This argument does not, can not apply to something as benign as sexual orientation, which has no physical impact on anyone nearby.

"Just keep it to yourself" is much, much more damaging and oppressive than that innocuous-sounding phrase implies. I am very grateful to live in a country where people generally don't have to do this.

Mar 20, 2012 5:13 AM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
jmal said:
Yarodomo said:
They have nothing to defend themselves about, it's not like people are going around asking if they're homosexual and put them in jail if they identify as one.

Just a few hours ago you argued that their persecution is justified/understandable because it's so widespread and "half the world' wants to execute them. But above you are saying that they have nothing to fear and don't need to defend themselves. I find these statements very hard to reconcile.

They have nothing to fear if they don't flaunt it.
of course they're gonna be executed if they're gonna go shout in public "I'm a fag and you have to accept me or i'll annoy the shit out of you".

After reading the above 2 page shitstorm, I have to say I agree with Jmal's logic a bit more...

However, that's not saying I agree with homosexuality. Granted, it doesn't explicitly bother me( I do have a homosexual friend, and we get along perfectly fine) UNLESS they're flamboyant and creepy about it. But it isn't natural, whether everyone has the right to love whoever they want or not(which they do).

In addition, while "half the world"(it's probably more than that, tbh...) wants to execute them, and they will do so whenever possible, that doesn't make it justified. Do I agree with homosexuality? Not necessarily. Do I agree that homosexuals should be killed for their beliefs? Absolutely not.

Besides, the right to annoy the shit out of someone is not only part of your 9th amendment right if you're in the US, but I believe it's part of your fundamental human rights as well(the one where you have rights not explicitly stated).

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with Yaro's anti-homosexual views a bit more, but I don't support his arguments or the fact that they should be killed or forced to hide it.

Mar 20, 2012 4:54 AM by Wicked_Glory

Yarodomo said:
They have nothing to defend themselves about, it's not like people are going around asking if they're homosexual and put them in jail if they identify as one.

Just a few hours ago you argued that their persecution is justified/understandable because it's so widespread and "half the world' wants to execute them. But above you are saying that they have nothing to fear and don't need to defend themselves. I find these statements very hard to reconcile.

Mar 19, 2012 10:02 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
Can you read? You're claiming that you're against hate, this topic has alot of hate comments yet you're replying to MINE, hypocricy at its best.

I cannot reply to every post in every thread. And yet I have replied to many, many, many posts talking shit on fanservice on these forums, in a variety of threads. I've even made enemies who say I do it way too much! You're speaking to the last person you can make a convincing case on this about. Seriously.

You're talking about shit in the past where it carried a death sentance and now it's accepted, how is that?

"How is that?" Societies become better educated, minorities defend themselves, the majority becomes more accepting, and over and over and over taboos fade when we realize there's no societal harm behind them, that's how. Sometimes it happens rapidly, sometimes it takes a very very long time, and it varies from place to place and, yes, sometimes regression occurs. But it's been the story of civilization nonetheless, in its most basic form.

On a side note, i don't get this whole "gender knows no love" arguement of yours, and if gender knows no love (Which is one of the major things to consider when we talk about "love") then it knows no age too

"Love knows no gender" you mean. And I've said it before: adult consent is key. Laws regarding pedophilia and statutory rape are not perfect, for sure. They are only utilitarian, which is almost always imperfect, and we should always strive to make laws better. And of course they vary across cultures and time. But the general rationale is that there must be some protection for minors, however "minor" is defined in a time and place. This is because we know through scientific study that mental faculties develop over time. For example, a five year old is usually (always most likely) simply not able to fully comprehend what it means to have sexual relations with a 30 year old. As ages get closer and the minors get less minor it gets blurrier. I'm sure there are, say, 16 year olds who can and do have entirely healthy and responsible sexual relations with 23 year olds. But that kind of nuance is very hard to codify into law, and so we have imperfect but in some cases necessary laws.

(To be clear, these are laws about formalized relationships and sexual activity, not "love" per se. There are no laws against holding affection for someone of any age.)

In any case the specifics are not critical; the broad outlines are. And laws aimed at protecting children from the potentially negative effects situations they might not fully understand cannot be compared to laws seeking to restrict the relationship of two consenting adults where there is no demonstrable harm. They are simply not equivalent concepts.

These concerns fall away when only fictional representations (not human beings) are concerned, which is something we agree on (whether you choose to believe me or not).

Mar 19, 2012 9:33 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
You're being anti-hate, that's good and all, but i don't see you "anti-hating" on those trolls who're hating on queen's blade for having jiggling boobs all over the screen. see? you're a hypocrite, that much is obvious.

I have said over and over and over that I have no problem with fanservice, and I support it even. I enjoy it. Hell I've even watched Queen's Blade and intend to watch this season too. And I have no problem with fanservice of characters with a young fictional canon age. I said this repeatedly, not just in other threads, but directly to you.

But you sit here and say I'm somehow against it, even though it's the exact opposite of everything I've said. I am actually genuinely curious: are you doing that on purpose, or is it a genuine case of reading comprehension issues? If neither, then what? Because it is clearly, demonstrably false to say I'm against fanservice. So it would be best for you to drop that line of attack.

Yarodomo said:
Think about it, why would the majority of people be against something that isn't harming anyone.

This is a truly disturbing comment. Have you ever studied history, even at the middle school level? Are you aware of the sheer number of things we (in modern democratic countries anyway, and some others besides) now accept as inalienable human rights that were taboo and carried a death sentence in the past? Marrying outside your faith, marrying outside your race, criticizing your king/dictator/government, changing faiths or being a minority faith, being free from indentured servitude/slavery? I also don't want to go back to a time when people could be "justifiably" killed or exiled from society for being born with a disfigurement, being albino, being a "witch", eating the wrong kinds of foods, or contracting certain diseases.

I'm guessing you don't understand how grateful you should be to live in a society where you don't have to worry about any of that, and can just sit on a computer talking about tits and lolis freely (and it's a great thing, to be sure). Because if you did understand that at all, you wouldn't use such a shallow, thoughtless, "might makes right" argument to justify the persecution of some other group. You wouldn't put forth illogical, unsubstantiated "I can't even explain how it hurts anyone, but a lot of people hate it, ergo it must be harmful" arguments with any degree of seriousness. I've seen many poor arguments in favor of discrimination, but this is one of the worst and most dangerous.

The only silver lining here is that time is clearly not on your side. Just as other taboos against thoroughly harmless behaviors have disintegrated in the past, discrimination against homosexuals is falling away as well, and indeed is fading rapidly in most advanced countries. The panicked hate speech and protest rallies are just dying gasps of the old guard, no different from when other forms of discrimination eventually ended, minus a minority of bigoted holdouts. You might win a few months or years or even decades of stagnation of progress, but it can't last. Enjoy it while you can, I guess.

Mar 19, 2012 8:43 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
Things i bring up? Did i offend YOU by any chance? because you seem butthurt for no reason.

Yes, of course I find anti-homosexual comments to be offensive, just like I find all intolerant speech to be offensive. There would be something deeply wrong with me if I did not.

truly hateful views? Now you're being a hypocrite.

You'll need to point out where the hate comes from on my end. Being anti-hate isn't hate, it's the opposite of hate.

Lolicon is more harmful than homosexuality? in what world?
You're comparing Lolicon, which is pure fantasy and fiction

Homosexuality does not harm you or anyone else, in fiction or reality. Being offended (entirely of your own volition) or "grossed out" that two men or two women love each other in no way constitutes "harm" to you, legally or otherwise. It's self-inflicted emotional distress.

Sexual desire for minors does not harm you or anyone else in fiction (thus as I've said, I accept it as valid artistic expression) but does harm many, many people in reality. The overriding distinction is adult consent (hence why the anti-homosexual counterarguments about bestiality are intellectuappy bankrupt - I thank you for not resorting to that one, at the very least).

You and I accept a distinction between reality and fiction in the case of sexual desire for minors, and for good reasons. "Consent" does not apply to imaginary characters. Physical/emotional harm cannot possibly come to a drawing, computer-generated image, or the printed word. And of course age is a thoroughly meaningless construct in imaginary realms so even the concept of "minor" loses meaning in fiction.

But see (I'm getting to the point, really), there are people, on this very forum even, who think we're both just as "wrong" as you think a supporter of "homophilia" is wrong, misguided, ignorant, or whatever other words you've used. To them, there is no distinction, or at least an inadequate one, between real world pedophiles, and someone who thinks Nanoha 1st/A's Fate Testarossa is pretty hot and, say, faps to a Fate doujin. Ridiculous, sure, but try convincing them of that.

I'm trying to challenge the absoluteness of your views by pointing out that the sheer disdain you exhibit towards people who criticize your sexual interests rings very hollow if you then turn around and so strongly dismiss some other kind of sexual expression - one that is harmless even when it is applied to reality. Be more tolerant and you won't ever find yourself in the situation of making a "do as I say, not as I do" argument.

to homosexuality, which is one of the major social issues to the point where half the countries are killing homosexuals for it?

The fact that some communities are engaging in hateful persecution of a minority group is the issue there; the existence of said minority group is not (if gays and lesbians started murdering heterosexuals for their sexual practices, I'd condemn the former no less strongly). Trying to reverse that logic is the purest definition of blaming the victim.

I assume you'd never say that about, say... honor killings of women who have been raped or had extramarital sex. Or mixed-race relationships. or interfaith relationships. All of them can get you killed if you live in the wrong place and/or time. That something is a "social issue" (an empty phrase in and of itself) says nothing about whether it is actually harmful to anyone. It just says that it evokes feelings of intolerance and hate in some people, and the problem therefore lies with those people, not the ones they persecute.

Mar 19, 2012 3:04 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
No, what you were seeking is a pointless arguement.

If you don't want people to reply to things you bring up (unilaterally and not even on topic at that) then you have a responsibility to keep your mouth closed/fingers off the keyboard. You've already spoken, so you will damn well deal with the reactions. If that bothers you, you have the choice to keep the opinion to yourself next time. And yes, I most certainly will speak up when someone expresses what I view as truly hateful views, and whether it happens in Congress or in a silly anime forum makes no difference. I will never, ever, ever apologize for or back down from that.

Well they're not exactly idiots, "ignorant" is probably more appropriate, but i do pity them for being raised so poorly as to have some messed up beliefs, and sir, we clearly live in different worlds, your nonsense ideals don't match with mine.

I hope you understand you've now lost all credibility to lash out at people (as you very often do) who criticize certain sexual mores in anime or elsewhere. The next time you want to counter someone for complaining about lolicon (which would be considered vastly more deviant and harmful than homosexuality by many people), or sexually explicit fanservice, or whatever, you'll know, even if you can't admit it, that you're being hypocritical by expecting them to wholeheartedly accept one thing while you sit back and flippantly and very snidely dismiss another.

Ideals of exclusion and intolerance are not equivalent to ideals of inclusion and tolerance. The former cannot claim greater moral authority. So I'll use your own words right back at you: "my brain fails to understand why, why on the damn earth would people hate on stuff like this."

And i'd also apperciate if you stop mixing between fiction and reality.

You'll need to point out where I did this if you want to play this card. The only time I brought the two up was to do the exact opposite and explicitly separate them.

Mar 19, 2012 1:56 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:
You clearly didn't get the joke.

Precisely why I was seeking clarification. I didn't see any joke, just what looked like non sequitur with potentially disturbing implications.

And by Homophiles i didn't necessarily mean those idiots with the whole same-sex love support horsepoo.

Oh reallllly? So believing that consenting adults have a right to love regardless of gender makes people idiots, does it? You really, really don't want to go down that road. It'd be pretty disappointing and hypocritical coming from someone who is defending the right to partake in the far more deviant lolicon entertainment (a choice I also support btw, albeit strictly in fiction, which should go without saying).

it's just like...a metaphore or something (If i spelt it right.)

...A metaphor for what? I still can't make any sense of what you were saying and this post doesn't clarify at all.

Or you happen to be one of those homophiles? What's your story, bro?

I may be straight myself, but am a huge fan of yuri stories (you might have noticed Queen's Blade is a very very yuri heavy franchise, albeit not one I'm a huge fan of - it's watchable though) and strongly support the idea that all humans have equal rights to live their lives as they wish, so long as they're not harming anyone else (offending someone's socio-religious sensibilities doesn't count), if that's what you mean.

Mar 19, 2012 1:05 PM by jmal

Yarodomo said:

Homo...philes? I'm not clear on how this connects to the rest of your comment. What would supporters of same-sex love have to do with trolling about lolis?

Mar 18, 2012 9:44 PM by jmal

tembikai said:
108s9001 said:
I watch Queen's Blade for the plot.

me too.

I watch it for both the plot and the ecchi, both of which I thoroughly enjoy. I'm interested to see how Claudette has changed, as well as seeing the old cast of characters again.

It's only 16 days away too( did I calculate that correctly?)! 2 and a half weeks til the new season =]

Mar 18, 2012 7:32 PM by Wicked_Glory

Aha, finally it's coming =] and just in time too, only got the 4 OVAs and a few of the short little 3 min. specials left.

Hopefully it'll improve on the originals :D

Feb 6, 2012 12:36 PM by Wicked_Glory

Soo... 2 OVAs for now then a series in April ^^ I hope we can se characters from First/Second Series... NANAEL-SAMA <33 @.@

Jan 8, 2012 10:35 AM by ikul666

Got a backlog of anime to catch up on, but I think I may have to have a look into the Queen Blade craze.

Oct 31, 2011 5:54 AM by Elite60

108s9001 said:
I watch Queen's Blade for the plot.
And I watched Monster for tits.

Oct 29, 2011 1:25 PM by Tiago97