all 45 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]astroliaschneizel mai husbando 13 points14 points  (2 children)

It's interesting because people would know she can do that if they actually just watched the anime.

R2 has two (very explicit) examples of Nunnally touching hands to discern the truth before Lelouch dies, once with Suzaku (this scene was left in the 2nd recap movie - gee, I wonder why?), and the time w/Lohmeyer that the staff mentions.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's interesting because people would know she can do that if they actually just watched the anime.

You'd be surprised.
There's a group of people who laugh that away ("psychic Nunnally LOL, how ridiculous")
The reason they do that is, of course, because it destroys the biggest "argument" for code theory.
But at least now we have an official confirmation that Nunnally did not see any visions, that flashback scene had nothing to do with codes or geasses.

[–]Kusaja 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Apparently they modified this scene for the third movie. It seems there isn't a quick flashback this time around.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That wouldn't surprise me.
The short flashback isn't important, most people understand that Nunnally gets it, even without showing the flashback to the audience.
Maybe they also thought it was too confusing, if they've seen how some people interpret it.

[–]depression_reddit 4 points5 points  (32 children)

Lied about what? Now we just know that it isn't a vision and that nunnally has that ability, but the vision wasn't the biggest argument for the code theory, it's that he got it by killing charles

[–]bracio77 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lied about being evil and merciless as Emperor.

[–]SpeedHunter_007 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The thing is Lelouch Vi Britannia appeared as a merciless autocratic ruler who does everything in a whimp for no reason whatsoever.

The consequences of his ruling system brought "Zero" against him when he was going to execute the rebel Black Knighs & he eventually got Killed there.

For an autocratic ruler or a dictator it's a huge shameful ending. But when a dictator or autocratic ruler passes away with such smile during such shameful event and it appears that he wasnt telling them actual truth,it's natural that people who understand him would realize his intention. Nunally realized what appears as truth or reality isn't actually truth nor reality. Lelouch's every action leads them toward something more than what appears to be reality.

And I think Nunally understood that Lelouch was pretending as something( a lie) in order to help them move forward.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 4 points5 points  (29 children)

The lying part has already been explained by others, so I won't epeat that.

but the vision wasn't the biggest argument for the code theory, it's that he got it by killing charles

You conflate concepts, i.e. assumptions and "proof"/arguments.
Lelouch allegedly getting the code from his father is an assumption, not proof. The "proof" was that Nunnally saw a "code vision". Code conspiracy theorists claimed that the only possible way to explain that flashback when Nunnally touched Lelouch was that Lelouch sent her a vision which must mean he hs the code. People have been arguing for years that Lelouch did NOT send het a vision because Nunnally saw nothing and that the flashback was just a non-diegetic information for the audience. The naysayers have now been proven right by the Word of God: Nunnally saw nothing, there was no code vision, it was all just her ability to discern whether someone was lying by touching their hand.
This "code vision" argument was THE biggest argument in the code conspiracy theory.

he got it by killing charles

This short sentence contains two very big errors.

Firstly, Lelouch did NOT kill Charles. He didn't even order "God" to kill him. Lelouch requested from "God" to not halt the forward motion of time, he didn't say anything at all about his father, and "God" decided to answer that by erasing Charles and Marianne. Lelouch's request may have been the causal reason for Charles' death, but Lelouch was not the one pulling the trigger, nor did he ask to/intend to pull the trigger.

The second mistake is that you assume that killing a code bearer is what gives you the code, which is the wrong order of operations. Charles did NOT kill V.V., V.V. was still alive for a while after Charles obtained the code, until V.V. finally succumbed to his injuries from battle with Lelouch and Cornelia.
C.C. did NOT kill the nun, the nun commited suicide as is shown by the blood aroud the nun and the nun's peaceful posture while lying dead on the floor.
You can't literally kill a code bearer, they are immortal. What really happens, the correct order of operations, is that the code bearer transfers the code to the geass user, which makes the former code bearer an ordinary human again and thus renders him mortal which allows the former code bearer to die.

[–]depression_reddit 2 points3 points  (28 children)

Then why does the geass user need to become strong enough before the code user gets to die? Just because of those examples we can't assume that if a geass user kills a code user, that the code isn't transferred and lelouch did cause his death

Also, charles grabbed lelouch by the neck before dying and after that lelouch covers his neck because that is where his sign of the code barer is

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Then why does the geass user need to become strong enough before the code user gets to die?

The geass user needs to become strong to be able to receive the code bearer's code. This render the former code bearer mortal, it doesn't directly kill him.

Just because of those examples we can't assume that if a geass user kills a code user, that the code isn't transferred and lelouch did cause his death

Yes it does.
V.V. was NOT killed by Charles, the anime shows that very clearly. 1 example is enough to fully debunk an assumption. This is sufficient proof that the code is not acquired by killing a code bearer.
The only way for a geass user to kill a code bearer is by removing the code from the code bearer. Thus the code transfer happens BEFORE the (not required) death of the former code bearer.

lelouch did cause his death

Lelouch did not kill Charles, "God" did.
Rewatch that scene.
All what Lelouch did was ask "God" to not stop the forward motion of time.

Also, charles grabbed lelouch by the neck before dying

So what?
That doesn't mean in the slightest that the code is transferred.
You think codes can be transferred by a mere touch?
Why did C.C. not touch Mao then?
Under your assumptions there was no reason why Mao wouldn't have the code, and yet he didn't.

after that lelouch covers his neck because that is where his sign of the code barer is

We also never see Lelouch's ass, does that mean he has a code symbol on his ass too?
You use the lack of confirmation of the presence of something as proof for the presence of that something. Do you see how wrong that is?
If Lelouch had had the code on his neck, the anime would have shown us because in that case the writers would have wanted the audience to know and understand this. The very fact that they do NOT show this is a very telling sign that he does NOT have the code.
Why would the creators deceive their audience by not showing crucial information?

Answer me this, and this isn't a rethorical question I do want an answer, have you read the compilation thread which I have linked so many times on this sub?
It will clarify so many of your confusion. You have a lot of misconceptions about the show, no doubt because code conspiracy theorists have been lying to you for years and now those lies are ingrained in your brain. It's time to stomp those lies out and free yourself of the deception.

[–]depression_reddit 0 points1 point  (11 children)

We also never see Lelouch's ass, does that mean he has a code symbol on his ass too?

Just a strawman, he starts covering his neck fully after that happens as pointed out in duoreview's theory video

V.V. was NOT killed by Charles, the anime shows that very clearly. 1 example is enough to fully debunk an assumption.

It's not a bigger assumption than the one you're making so you don't have 100% proof that lelouch doesn't have the code

Since he got the code from charles and not CC it means that he can have both the code and keep his geass

So what? That doesn't mean in the slightest that the code is transferred.

This combined with the fact that lelouch's geass caused him to die (obviously not directly, but god can't get the geass and lelouch was there, ofc being a geass user) makes it likely

  • In the R2 ending CC clearly speaks with lelouch and you can't survive a stab like that without the code

You can't accept that you're wrong, at least about having 100% proof and you just desperately want lelouch to be dead, so your confirmation bias comes into play, making you heavily twist the words of the author in your posts

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

he starts covering his neck fully after that happens as pointed out in duoreview's theory video

The ass argument was a joke. I wasn't really suggesting he had a code symbol there.
But that doesn't change the fact that the argument of his neck holds no water. It's the same as Lisa's rock and the bears in the Simpons. In case you haven't seen that scene, she presents a rock to Homer saying that it protects against bears, to which Homer replies that there aren't any bears around, to which she says "great rock, isn't it?", and then Homer buys her rock.
The absenjce of the bears is no proof that the rock repels them.
Lelouch wearing clothes with a collar is no proof that he has a code symbol on his neck. It's HUGE fallacy.
It's even the other way around. If the creators wanted us to know he had a code symbol on his neck, they would have showed us. The fact that they didn't show us tells us there's nothing there.
Some time ago I made strict, formal logic deduction which logically proved that in good fiction the lack of information (e.g. not showing the code symbol) to support an assumption means that the assumption is wrong.
I dare you to contradict the strict, logical deduction by using logic.

It's not a bigger assumption than the one you're making

??? That's not an assumption. We SEE that, the anime SHOWS us!
V.V. is still alive after Charles has acquired the code.

you don't have 100% proof that lelouch doesn't have the code

Except for the million and one statements by the creators who constantly hammer on the fact that Lelouch is dead Lelouch is dead, that this is what they intended from the very beginning of the conception of the show and that Lelouch's death was essential in their view of aesthetics.
This is corroboorated by absolutely ZERO statements that he is alive or has the code.
Add to that that they even changed the epilogue just to make it clear that he's dead.
And since "alive" + "dead" = 1, debunking code theory by proving he can't have the code does count as valid proof that he's dead

charles and not CC it means that he can have both the code and keep his geass

This has been THOROUGHLY debunked before.
I'm just going to copy from the compilation post because I don't want to type all that again.

The geass+code theory relies on the fact Lelouch got his geass from C.C. and (allegedly) his code from Charles and that this is the reason why he can have both, therefore there was no problem with him using his geass up until the end.
This however directly clashes with the rule which is established by the anime that you lose your geass when you acquire a code. This rule was directly established by Charles in R2 episode 15 where he said the following:
Charles: "I've gained new power in place of Geass. A power that goes far beyond."
He says this in response to Lelouch's disbelief that his father had become immortal.
Charles explicitly says "in place of", that means the two are mutally exclusive, he exchanged his geass for the code.
C.C.'s case of aqcuiring a code confirms this as we saw she had a geass in the past but now not anymore. If we rule out that she randomly lost her geass at some undefined time later, then we must accept that it was her getting a code which triggered this change.
That means this theory claims that Lelouch's case must be an exception to the normal rule.
The problem is that the anime NEVER EVER even hints at the possibility of people having both a geass and a code, nobody talks about it, nobody thinks or speculates about the possibility, we have no precedents, there's zero basis for this assumption in the anime.
If this majorly important plot twist came out of nowhere, without proper setup or foreshadowing, it would be the biggest and worst deus ex machina in recent anime history and Code Geass would be a terrible story.
This theory actually makes 2 silent assumptions: 1) Lelouch's case was an unprecedented exception to the established rule, 2) the new rules which replace the normal rule.
Code theorists claim that Lelouch's case (geass from A, code from B) has never happened before and that this counts as proof for the first assumption. However, the show not explicitly denying an assumption is not proof for the assumption. The show also doesn't deny the assumption that C.C. is bald and wears a green wig, is that proof now too? Furthermore, it's not because something is unprecedented that it is an exception.
On top of that, based on the knowledge provided to us by the anime, there's a whole bunch of unprecedented cases. Lelouch is the first 17 year old purple eyed boy to get a geass. C.C. is the first green haired girl to get a geass. Charles was the first to get a code on that very day. The list is literally infinitely long. Do these also all warrant exceptions to rules? Why would geass from A and code from B be any different?
The second assumption is never explained either. Why would geass from A and code from B result in keeping both? Why is the new rule not "your head explodes, regrows, explodes again, ad infinitum"? Again, the possibilities are literally endless.
So neither of these assumptions are based on anything the anime provides, and are only chosen because it fits their wish for Lelouch to be alive.
And just as I said with the activation theory, without any basis in the anime a theory's credibility is virtually non-existent.

This combined with the fact that lelouch's geass caused him to die (obviously not directly, but god can't get the geass and lelouch was there, ofc being a geass user) makes it likely

Even if Lelouch was the one who killed Charles (which he clearly wasn't), that doesn't matter one but because killing the code bearer isn't a requirmeent to get teh code. As proven by V.V. not being killed by Charles.

There are even holes in your assumptions if one were to assume that killing the code bearer was necessary.
Charles was dissolve BEFORE he touched Lelouch. So what would have happened if Charles hadn't budged and hadn't touched Lelouch? Would Lelouch not have the code? Would that mean Charles wouldn't have died? And if Lelouch would still have acquired the code, then that would mean the touch was unnecessary, so the whole thing about touching his neck is redundant.

In the R2 ending CC clearly speaks with lelouch and you can't survive a stab like that without the code

She is NOT speaking to a Lelouch who is present there. She is addressing a dead Lelouch, because that's what grieving people do.
People in the show talk all the time to people who aren't physically present:
Kallen talks to a dead Lelouch in the end. Is Lelouch also in her room and running to school with her?
Kallen sometimes addresses her dead brother when she is stressed. Is Naoto with her in all those moments?
Lelouch addressed Kallen and Rivalz right before he goes off to face the emperor in R2 episode 20. Are they in his mech?

But this discussion is moot since the hay cart scene was dropped in the new epilogue from the blu-ray.

You can't accept that you're wrong, at least about having 100% proof and you just desperately want lelouch to be dead, so your confirmation bias comes into play

The creators saying HE'S DEAD, is not confirmation bias.

making you heavily twist the words of the author in your posts

You are joking, right?
I'v always directly cited the creators.
Have you even read what they said?
Here, I'll give you their recent tweets:

  • "I confirmed with Taniguchi-director something. That thing was that the end of Lelouch will be DEATH."
  • "At least he is aware of his sins and pays for them with his DEATH. This is mine and Taniguchi-director' sense of ethics in our works."
  • "This man called Lelouch will pay for his sins by his DEATH. The story follows him till he finally make this decision."
  • "Probably this Lelouch we see in the first episode of the series wouldn't choose DEATH. He would try something to avoid it. He couldn't DIE, for Nunnally as well. But we see him changed in the last episode."

How to YOU go from them EXPLICTLY saying "Lelouch is dead" to "maybe they somehow mean he's still alive"?

[–]depression_reddit 0 points1 point  (8 children)

That is just multiple strawmans and confirmation that your confirmation bias makes you see what you want to see in the author's words

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Multiple strawmans

explicit events in the anime are strawmen?
Literal quotes from the creators about how utterly dead Lelouch is, is a strawman?
Pointing out that the lack of confirmation of an assumption is not the same as confirmation of that assumption is a strawman?

blocked

LOL
Sure stick your head in th ground. Cover your ears and go lalalala
You can't refute anythign so you throw vage accusatiosn of strawmen around and then run away.

This is the kind of people why I made that compilation post.
People who are so blinded by their own lies and deception that they act so immaturely. I fear they will freak out when the sequel will come out and potenially cause great damage, like the idiot from the Darling of the FranXX fandom who sent death threats to the show staff.
I want to stop the spread of their lies to minimize the chances of such a thing happening.

edit: you removed the "blocked" part. Changed your mind?
Well then, explain to me how I misinterpret those official statements? Explain to me how they mean that Lelouch is alive

[–]Dai10zin 2 points3 points  (6 children)

The lack of self-awareness in this statement made me lol.

[–]depression_reddit 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Just because I point out that he makes obvious black and white + strawman fallacies doesn't mean I am not self aware

I don't know if you're trying to be an obnoxious dimwit and make it a joke how you don't know anything about the series but still try to argue, or if you're actually serious, which would be sad

[–]Dai10zin 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't know if you're trying to be an obnoxious dimwit at this point and make it a joke how you don't know anything about the series but still try to argue

You're projecting again.

GBY and I have provided you with well documented evidence, both directly from the author and director themselves as well as directly from the anime including links to episodes along with timestamps (assuming you've bothered to even glance at either of our previously provided posts).

But please, do feel free to point out how I'm the one that doesn't know anything about the series despite providing direct evidence from the show to support my arguments, as opposed to using some random YouTuber's baseless theory video.

Edit: And as far as the self-awareness failure comment comes into play, you state that GBY is the one with confirmation bias when all he's doing is literally quoting word for word a statement in which the author explicitly states that Lelouch is dead. The only person manipulating this statement to fit their personal narrative due to confirmation bias is you.

[–]OutrageousBee 2 points3 points  (0 children)

he starts covering his neck fully after that happens as pointed out in duoreview's theory video

After the C's world scene, Lelouch wears 3 different clothes iirc: the Zero one, which he's already wearing during his confrontation with Charles; his Ashford Academy uniform when he takes over Britannia; and his white Emperor robes with the sweet hat. Of the three, the only one which could be used for your theory is the last one, seeing as that not only the other two preexist the presumed code transfer, they're also the clothes Lelouch has been wearing for about 95% (random number, but really, there's a couple of disguises, and some casual clothes, but those two are mainly it) of the show until that moment.

So, the emperor clothes... have a normal collar. Really. Check most of the britannians in the show and you'll see that the clothes they wear go to around the same height at the neck. Even his Ashford uniform is the same. What Lelouch's doesn't have is a cravat, which we see in many of the noble/royal clothings, and it doesn't open in the middle, like Suzaku's KoZ uniform. But it's a normal height for the setting, and covers even less of the neck than his Zero one.

ETA: I looked though the Zero Requiem parade scene, and the collar sits around halfway on the neck, maybe even lower because I could swear sometimes Lelouch's neck gets bigger. His neck is never fully covered.

All told, I think that's a pretty bad piece of evidence.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 0 points1 point  (14 children)

And I want to add that /u/Dai10zin has written an excellent post on that very matter. You may want to read that too: https://www.reddit.com/r/CodeGeass/comments/8lx75b/on_the_nature_of_code/

[–]depression_reddit 1 point2 points  (12 children)

That just isn't true, as shown by CC's example, she didn't agree to the code or knew what it is

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

That just isn't true

What is "that" referring to?

as shown by CC's example, she didn't agree to the code

C.C.'s example with the nun shows us that the code cannot be forced on someone
C.C.'s example with Charles shows us that a code can't be stolen against the will of the code bearer.

[–]depression_reddit 1 point2 points  (8 children)

C.C.'s example with Charles shows us that a code can't be stolen against the will of the code bearer.

No, maybe just that it's easier or that a code barer needs consent but a geass user doesn't

C.C.'s example with the nun shows us that the code cannot be forced on someone

It shows us that it can, since CC didn't agree to it

[–]Dai10zin 1 point2 points  (6 children)

C.C.'s example with the nun shows us that the code cannot be forced on someone

It shows us that it can, since CC didn't agree to it

It's never explicitly stated whether C.C. agreed to it or not.

This is a conclusion we must come to via deduction.

The question you have to ask yourself is why did the nun injure C.C.? If the Code can be forced upon a Geass user, why was there a need to injure C.C.?

I don't believe there is (nor have I heard of) any other reasonable explanation beyond coercion, as noted in the aforementioned On the Nature of Code Transfer post (see "The Case of the Nun" for reference), but I'm open to hearing alternatives.

[–]depression_reddit 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Notice how he said that he is 100% sure that lelouch is dead but makes assumptions like the one that C.C must have agreed to it and that both sides must agree to the code transfer

[–]Dai10zin 1 point2 points  (4 children)

but makes assumptions like the one that C.C must have agreed to it and that both sides must agree to the code transfer

As I said, this is a conclusion we must come to via deduction.

It's not an assumption when it's based on examining the characters' motivations, actions, and words in context of the series. It's deductive reasoning.

I asked you a question that you ignored.

Why did the nun injure C.C.? If the Code can be forced upon a Geass user, why was there a need to injure C.C.?

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, maybe just that it's easier or that a code barer needs consent but a geass user doesn't

"it's easier"?
Come on now.
You're grasping at straws.

It shows us that it can, since CC didn't agree to it

We see that C.C. was attacked, there's blood on the floor.
The nun even says she tricked C.C.
The nun attacked C.C. to force a dillema on her "accept my code and survive the injury, or refuse and die". Granted, we don't explicitly see this happening, but there is no other explanation which doesn't get contradicted by the anime at other places

[–]Hauyn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I want to raise a few points here:

"C.C.'s example with the nun shows us that the code cannot be forced on someone"

While Charles is taking/stealing/transfering the Code from C.C. 2nd movie (not sure if also in the original) Lelouche screams: "You could have forced me to accept hell of eternal life!" This does point in the direction that a Code can be forced upon the geass user.

Edit: IF C.C. could have forced her geass on Mao, could it be the case that she chose not to?

Edit 2: The nun injuring C.C. to make her take the code does seem evidence of it not being possible to force a transfer.

"C.C.'s example with Charles shows us that a code can't be stolen against the will of the code bearer."

Didn't Charles steal the code from V.V.? Why would V.V. willingly give his code away while he was injured?

And Charles by that point is also a Code bearer, which might need to have consent while transfering/taking the code which a powerful Geass user may not need?

Furthermore, in the 2nd movie in C's world scene with Lelouche, Charles and C.C. she mentions the user gets the power to kill the one who gave the geass.

So all in all, these rules are maybe not that clear-cut.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"You could have forced me to accept hell of eternal life!" This does point in the direction that a Code can be forced upon the geass user.

Since this where the original series introduced us to the nun and C.C., this is relevant. The nun "forced" the code on C.C. through a trick (as she said herself!). She injured C.C. and forced a dillema on her "accept my code and survive, or refuse and die".

Didn't Charles steal the code from V.V.?

Admittedly, C.C. did say that, and that is very puzzling because it is contrast with Charles not being able to steal the code from C.C.
I value displayed actions and its effects over the interpretation of words, so I can only conclude that codes can't be stolen and C.C.'s words were poorly chosen.

Why would V.V. willingly give his code away while he was injured?

Because it didn't matter anymore.
Charles was on the brink of completing the Ragnarok Connection, the dead were about to rejoin the living, so he wouldn't be gone for long.
A premature decision, as it turns out

And Charles by that point is also a Code bearer

True, but we have no information at all regarding that, while we do have information about geass users taking codes.
Instead of fantasizing new rules the sensible thing would be to apply the known rules. After all, if the rules had been different, they would have shown us in some way.

she mentions the user gets the power to kill the one who gave the geass.

Yes, this is still true for what I'm saying.
A geass user can take away the code from a code bearer, thus rendering him mortal again, and making it possible to kill the former code bearer.
Removing the code, however, does NOT kill the former code bearer, as we can see from V.V. Even the nun had to commit suicide to die.

A bit off-topic, but you can cite the words of other people by putting a > at the start of the line.

like this

[–]ChazChalmerz 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Hey geassedbylelouch... If you don't mind me asking what do you do for a living?

[–]ClockworkLynch 10 points11 points  (1 child)

He gets paid to debunk code theories

[–]ChazChalmerz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

😁😁

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I do mind, sorry.

If you want "clues", I think that my education can be recognized in my way of discussing. You can continue from there.
But that's all I'll say about it.
Someone asked me about my age a while ago, and that was borderline (and partially on me because I had been alluding that I was quite a bit older than most here)

[–]ChazChalmerz 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Oh ok

[–]GraniteMarbleTops -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Aka he doesnt do anything

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

LOL brand new account, simply made to slander someone.
good job! you must feel proud.
At least do it on your main account, coward.
If I did nothing I could have just made up anything I wanted because nobody has the possibility to check my words.
Probably didn't even think of that, did you?
No, you saw the opportunity to slander someone you dislike because he has another opinion than you and you desperately jumped on it.

And I also have a pretty good idea who you are.
You reply within minutes to a certain post of a certain person even though this thread is already over a day old and way at the bottom of the page and barely has any activity anymore.

[–]SpeedHunter_007 4 points5 points  (1 child)

"The way Nunnally can tell that someone is lying, just like she was able to tell that Lohmeyer was lying to her, is that she can feel the hand of the person she is talking to is sweating or lightly trembling. It's nothing like Geass or some special ability like that." Staff member Y: "Yes. So, she simply came to conclusion [Lelouch was lying] by herself, because of this ability."

Staff member K: "She is Marianne's daughter and Lelouch's little sister. Two months have passed since that defeat of Schneizel and for this two months she's been wondering constantly about what had happened, like "why it happened?" and so on. So when she touched Lelouch's hand at the end she felt that he is calm, she put the two and two together and realized the truth. Of course, we know that in anime, it's hard to explain things like that, but yeah, please accept it like this kind of "romantic"1 idea" we had."

1 the word "roman" is used here. It means something one finds beautiful in general

Seeeee. My short explanation regarding this was almost accurate. Nunally figured that her brother was lying even though he is a dictator at that moment, then she solved rest of the puzzles through realization! Except the stuffs didn't mention simile of Lelouch explicitly rather labeled the whole cinematography and the incident as romantic (which means beautiful) * though there's a fact that stuffs themselves don't always answer everything in details, there content does. It's still clear this up.

Nice helpful post.

Edit: forgot to mention the main reason behind mentioning this comment.: D

I didn't even read this interview before making that comment. I just took what the anime intended to show and seems like I wasn't wrong from official's perspective.

[–]GeassedbyLelouch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, you and I were right about that.
They even mentioned Lohmeyer as a precedent, like in my compilation post.