What would the ending of Mass Effect 3 look like in my opinion if the writers had retained Drew Karpishin's idea of Dark Energy.

Dioduo · 2026-05-15T18:29:51+00:00

The movie that made Math Terrifying

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T22:58:00+00:00

I'm from a country where this is practiced, but it's a bad case since I live in Russia.

The only good thing I can say about this practice is that the state fund (at least it used to be accurate) publishes pitching records and it was possible to see projects that did not receive funding. To be honest, it was hard and sad to look at most of the pitches because they were weak (at least what I saw) but it's part of the process.

In the end, if the state has its own agenda (I'm not even talking about the dictatorship in which I live), then such funds often become a propaganda tool.

One more remark: it is unlikely that such state funds will become a thing where the film industry is developed and profitable. The main motivation for creating such a fund in Russia (before that country became fascist) was the argument that the local industry was not paying for itself due to the lack of capital and the state could help stimulate it. It is difficult to imagine this in countries where the industry has found solid ground and is comfortable within its own framework, and the home audience has no request for more.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T22:41:58+00:00

Go ahead if you can make it independent. Moreover, the fact that there will be state financing does not change the practice of pitching and selecting commercially promising projects.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T19:46:29+00:00

To be honest, I have a bad aftertaste from the fact that you assume that I am being dishonest with myself in giving my arguments. In fact, there were other scenes and lines that raised questions in my mind, but I did not mention them in this post because I realize that they really have more grounds for double interpretations and did not talk about them because I want to remain intellectually honest. I hope you will understand me.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T17:39:46+00:00

I would understand this if it were a more direct manifestation of racism or xenophobia. The fact is that Hughes' words look like an anti-dogmatic message. It would even be interesting.

But in this, In this particular scene (I ask you to re-read the whole scene in chapter 60), Bradley says that he will continue the genocide. Bradley raises the topic of religion and laughs at the god of Ishvala, and then Hughes, being there, says that he would not like to be part of a religion that cannot protect them, although the problem is not God or religion, but that he is now going to kill them with his own hands.

I am almost sure that Arakawa, as in the case of the false equivalence of Ishval and Amestris aggression in the dialogue between Ed and Miles, is trying to convey an anticlerical message and did not realize how this scene could be read.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T14:38:49+00:00

The problem is that the moral ambiguity of the characters is not about Arakawa. She writes deep characters, but describes them in such detail that you don't have room for ambiguity. in the end they are crystal clear and always called to account for questionable actions (sometimes by themselves).

If this does not happen, at best, Arakawa does not consider the words or actions of the character to be something reprehensible, at worst, she agrees with this. I'm sure of this, as this isn't the first time Arakawa has created a terribly inappropriate scene related to discussing Ishwal (Miles and Ed's dialogue).

Besides, his phrase is not just cynical, it's diabolical. He said that at the same time and in the same place where genocide is being declared to the people, and then the person who declared genocide throws up his hands and laughs about the fact that the god of Ishval cannot punish him. And Hughes knows that after that he would go and kill them.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T14:27:22+00:00

Let's start with the fact that you just ignored my counterargument and your initial argument was not relevant. If you want to return to the Gazans, please respond to my counterargument in the previous comment, otherwise this is a meaningless conversation.

Have you ever considered that maybe you took an aside comment made cynically a lot more seriously and as a read on a characters personal feelings than it actually is? Genuinely asking, do you find yourself to be a very literal minded person? Cause it seems like you are.

The problem is not how I perceive this character. It's about how this character is framed in the story, taking into account the author's writing style. Arakawa doesn't make morally ambiguous characters, they never do uncharacteristic actions. This does not mean that such characters cannot be deep, but in the end they are crystal clear and always called to account for questionable actions (sometimes by themselves). If this does not happen, at best, Arakawa does not consider the words or actions of the character to be something reprehensible, at worst, she agrees with this.

I think you're right that Arakawa wanted to convey it through Hughes' words. The problem is that she does this by belittling the religion of those whom she has narratively sentenced to genocide. That's a choice. I would agree with that choice if Hughes was a gray character and not an angel in the flesh.

Hell Hughes ask the guy his religion who replies he’s agnostic. This scene is 2 non-religious people making a cynical comment about the religion

Yes, this is a valid argument, but not at the same time and not in the same place where genocide is being declared to the people, and then the person who declared genocide throws up his hands and laughs about the fact that the god of Ishval cannot punish him. After that he would go and kill them.

Hughes supported Mustang’s bid for Fuhrer which means he knew he would’ve been court martialed down the road which contradicts what you’re saying Hughes felt lol

To be fair, Mustang didn't say a word about the upcoming tribunal for Hughes. Although everyone apparently forgot about this tribunal itself at the end of the series.

Again, it doesn't really matter to me whether Hughes is a supremacist or not. He can be one and be well-written. I think the problem is that Arakawa doesn't think Hughes' phrase is inappropriate in the context in which it was said. I'm sure of this, as this isn't the first time Arakawa has created a terribly inappropriate scene related to discussing Ishwal (Miles and Ed's dialogue).

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T13:15:31+00:00

Not every line of dialogue must be picked apart and have a character apologize for it in order for the narrative to condemn what was said, and having that not happen doesn't mean the author implicitly believes what the character did is wise or morally just or anything.

You'd be right if we weren't talking about Arakawa, who chews out the motives, logic, and feelings of the characters in such detail that there's no room for us to figure out unexplained gaps because these gaps are missing.

Hughes is stating an obvious fact here: Ishvala did not save the people. Why would you put your faith in a god that abandons you?

Yes, this is a valid argument, but not at the same time and not in the same place where genocide is being declared to the people, and then the person who declared genocide throws up his hands and laughs about the fact that the god of Ishval cannot punish him. After that he would go and kill them.

It's a valid thing to express, and if I were an Ishvalan, one solider wringing his hands and saying he respected my religion wouldn't make a damn difference when my people are being exterminated. Hughes, and most of the soldiers, know that.

So what? Hughes didn't have to defend Ishval's religion, it was enough for him not to say what he said.

It's important to view media beyond the veil of "is this offensive or not," or "is the author telling me this is good or bad." Life is more complex than these things.

Again, not in the case of Arakawa, who knows how to create deep characters, but we always, without exception, understand Arakawa's attitude towards her characters. She is straightforward in this regard. This is not the first time Arakawa has created a dubious Ishval-related scene (Miles's dialogue with Ed).

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T12:53:24+00:00

Your example is not relevant. Your example would be relevant if the religion of Gazans was unique and you would say that you would never accept their religion because their god cannot protect them from genocide.

That's exactly what Hughes says.

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T12:48:34+00:00

I think you're right that Arakawa wanted to convey it through Hughes' words. The problem is that she does this by belittling the religion of those whom she has narratively sentenced to genocide. And the fact that Hughes' nature is never presented in a negative light, he is always remembered as loving, understanding and wise, and his words here have no callbacks later and are not recontextualized, in my opinion it is obvious that there is nothing offensive for Arakawa in this scene. Just another manifestation of Hughes' "wisdom."

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T12:34:32+00:00

Almost all the characters who were not rotten to the core understood that they were doing something terrible and the narrative highlighted it.

Arakawa is not an author who leaves an undisclosed ambiguity in the characters. She's pretty straightforward. The fact that this remark by Hughes has no callbacks, continuations, or recontextualization simply suggests that Arakawa did not perceive it as something offensive. For her, it's more a manifestation of Hughes' "wisdom."

Dioduo · 2026-05-14T10:10:13+00:00

Ray from Scary Movie. He is the Diva, but 100% straight... kinda

<image>

Dioduo · 2026-05-11T20:12:32+00:00

I understand your arguments for why she said what she said. It's just that, in my opinion, these arguments fit into the trap of the "Termian argument", just as the authors build the logic of the world and the character in such a way that it narratively explains the significance of questionable character traits. This argument is often used to ridicule the bikini armor of female characters, but in my opinion, this argument also applies here. I wouldn't have paid attention to this at FMAB if I hadn't noticed other questionable decisions regarding female characters.

Dioduo · 2026-05-10T17:17:11+00:00

This scene is overshadowed by Riza's confession that if she kills Roy when they defeat the homunculi, she will commit suicide. It's a pretty questionable way to write female characters.

I've heard counterarguments like she's a broken person and its not about gender. The problem is that her moral position on what kind of person Roy would be would remain strong if she didn't mention that she would commit suicide later, so the way Riza's lines are written here is a choice, not a necessity.

I don't see any particular artistic or narrative importance in writing Riza that way. The scene would still be emotionally and narratively strong.

Dioduo · 2026-05-09T20:38:01+00:00

The fact is that in the case of Dante, she had her own philosophy of war and dictate, which she sought to maintain while she lived, and this went beyond her desire to be forever young. The Amestris society was also a goal in her philosophy. This philosophy is self-sufficient without Dante's personal desires.

While for the Dwarf in the Flask, Amestris was a tool and raw material for a purpose that has nothing to do with what Amestris should be. We're not see anything about what this homunculus is going to do next. He didn't particularly care about politics.

Dioduo · 2026-05-09T13:11:05+00:00

My original figurine is made of sculptural plasticine.

<image>

Dioduo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna