BIG O religion/God connections -(facinating, revealing stuff)...Season 3 and 4 News...

Did you just say that in Japan, honest to goodnes, they call Big Venus, Lucifer???

That's crazy, and would definitely lead me to believe the resets aren't good things...which I had already theorized. Becuase, I mean, nothing's really changed in effect. The memories are still lost. Its a cycle that needs to be broken. And only Roger can neogotiate with THE CREATOR to fix it, according to Rosewater in ep. 26.

Ugh, this series is impossible to figure out. Endlessly entriguing, intelligent, and fun, but extremely confusing. Wonder when we'll hear any possible news for a season 3? --or will we?

'later

PS- I liked the comment said (i appologise, don't remember who said so here) that humans cannot commprehend their true selves so to speak, which are their spirits. Very cool.


Do people here think . . . There needs to be some kind of cataclysmic showdown to conclude BIG O? A battle for the memories and to restore a true life as best as possible. I just feel, with the memories shown of BIG VENUS (WITH WINGS interestingly enough--we don't see that in the present, only in the flashbacks) shooting up the domes, that the BIG O and BIG VENUS are destined to do battle. Much in the way DUO and FAU faced judgement.

[Edit: Please don't double post. --Krang]

Well, I think that there needs to be some sort of final showdown between good and evil. And I think that Venus is an evil force which has tricked (or created) Angel into giving it power to reset things. I say it because not only is it called Lucifer in Japan, but also because we see it destroying things in the flashbacks, plus the fact that it's mostly white which in this series is the color of evil.

Also, have you ever noticed that Big Venus is a negative color of black? When I first saw it, I thought it was some sort of evil counterpart to Big O since they are exactly the same size and have very similar body builds. I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that BV isn't evil.

I think that it preserved its essence inside Angel (that's why she's a memory) and finally got enough power to release itself (with apologies to Tolkien).

quote:

Originally posted by Pythagoras I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that BV isn't evil.

Well, it might just be that you're hard to convince. Me, I find a lot wrong with the biblical theories. I mean, okay, so Roger Smith made a deal with the devil in the end, which means his soul is lost and the "We Have Come to Terms" ending is the devil laughing at us. Fair enough. But what were the other 25 1/2 episodes about?

I mean, the biblical theories basically turn the show into no more than a handful of vignettes, loosely coupled to superficial interpretations of the flashier parts of the Book of Revelation, buried within a vast tract of "irrelevant" character development, ongoing plot development, and action. The concept has a certain sophomoric grandeur, but is not the sort of thing that writers who want to keep drawing pachecks or production companies that want to keep making series would indulge in.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato quote: Originally posted by Pythagoras I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that BV isn't evil. Well, it might just be that you're hard to convince. Me, I find a lot wrong with the biblical theories. I mean, okay, so Roger Smith made a deal with the devil in the end, which means his soul is lost and the "We Have Come to Terms" ending is the devil laughing at us. Fair enough. But what were the other 25 1/2 episodes about? I mean, the biblical theories basically turn the show into no more than a handful of vignettes, loosely coupled to superficial interpretations of the flashier parts of the Book of Revelation, buried within a vast tract of "irrelevant" character development, ongoing plot development, and action. The concept has a certain sophomoric grandeur, but is not the sort of thing that writers who want to keep drawing pachecks or production companies that want to keep making series would indulge in.

I've said in the other threads that I don't believe that the apocalyptic references are meant to be guides to the plot. I am much more partial to the belief that the world of "Big O" is really some sort of entertainment gone awry. However, the religious allusions ARE meant to give clues about the characters and their motivations. That's why it's hard to dismiss all of the many parallels between the Beast and Big Venus and Alex and the False Prophet, and Schwartzwald and the two trees. If you think that such comparisons ought not to be drawn, why do you suppose Big Venus is called Lucifer?

The world of Paradigm was definitely constructed as a form of entertainment with outsiders given the ability to control different characters. When things start getting too screwed up, the creators of the world use the character of Big Venus to reset everything back to the way it was. Gordon Rosewater realized this and tried to game the system. Little did he know that his experiments would not stave off the continual resetting. But they did have some effect since the people of this loop have acted out of character. Beck aided Roger instead of the man who was paying his salary, Dastun saw his previous self, Roger didn't die at the bottom of the ocean, and Dorothy got up on her own.

All these actions, plus Roger's final monologue convinced them to stop erasing everyone's memories.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato quote: Originally posted by Pythagoras I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that BV isn't evil. Well, it might just be that you're hard to convince. Me, I find a lot wrong with the biblical theories. I mean, okay, so Roger Smith made a deal with the devil in the end, which means his soul is lost and the "We Have Come to Terms" ending is the devil laughing at us. Fair enough. But what were the other 25 1/2 episodes about? I mean, the biblical theories basically turn the show into no more than a handful of vignettes, loosely coupled to superficial interpretations of the flashier parts of the Book of Revelation, buried within a vast tract of "irrelevant" character development, ongoing plot development, and action. The concept has a certain sophomoric grandeur, but is not the sort of thing that writers who want to keep drawing pachecks or production companies that want to keep making series would indulge in.

Also to add to this, in the vision it shows Roger dead in the sea.... what is missing in that picture? Dorothy.

The book of Revelations is very confusing. No one can understand it in a rational sense. The Big O anime definitely has religious symbols in it, and references to Revelations. Whether these are these are meant to be the main theme or even a major theme is not known.

Trying to explain one mysterious thing (Big O) with an even more mysterious thing (Revelations) is a futile pursuit. You cant explain a mystery with a deeper mystery. If the Big O anime is only a retelling of the book of revelations, then we will never understand it rationally.

The Big O anime has themes from other religions in it, most notably Shintoism. But as most of us are from the judeo-christian background, these symbols from other religions go right over our heads and are ignored.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato quote: Originally posted by Pythagoras I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that BV isn't evil. Well, it might just be that you're hard to convince. Me, I find a lot wrong with the biblical theories. I mean, okay, so Roger Smith made a deal with the devil in the end, which means his soul is lost and the "We Have Come to Terms" ending is the devil laughing at us. Fair enough. But what were the other 25 1/2 episodes about? I mean, the biblical theories basically turn the show into no more than a handful of vignettes, loosely coupled to superficial interpretations of the flashier parts of the Book of Revelation, buried within a vast tract of "irrelevant" character development, ongoing plot development, and action. The concept has a certain sophomoric grandeur, but is not the sort of thing that writers who want to keep drawing pachecks or production companies that want to keep making series would indulge in.

I don't see that this is the case, except for those who try to insist on exact equivalencies (ie. B.V. is evidently labelled Lucifer in the art book, so therefore B.V. = the Christian devil).

If you hear a musical theme which reminds you of, say, Star Wars, that doesn't make the theme you just heard exactly equivalent to the Star Wars theme.

At best, it is based upon or riffing off of that theme.

Big O is jazz.

Some of what it riffs off of comes from Revelation.

It's worth talking about, especially when the thematic concerns of the Big O series overlap with the thematic concerns from its various sources, because those are the moments where the series is "in conversation" with other texts or shows.

"The Greatest Villain" is clearly "in conversation" with other giant robot shows (Power Rangers, anyone?), but it isn't helpful to assert that understanding all the references defines what that episode is doing. I'm not sure it's helpful to assert that picking up on those references is useless, either.

The question is what we can usefully and meaningfully derive from these intertextual conversations.

Personally, I'd not interpret BV/Lucifer as a Satan figure. I wouldn't rest an argument that BV represents an agent of "God" or the "Creator" (whatever that means in this context, and assuming it isn't the ultimate creator) on the resemblence between those laser beams which we see coming out of its mouth, and the very odd passage in Revelation 19: 15 and 21 describing a sharp sword which comes out of the mouth of a rider on a white horse.

If I were making such an argument, though. I could reasonably muster that arresting and odd image as contributory evidence. There are too many obvious references to the Bible in general and Revelation specifically to discount them.

Narsham

quote:

Originally posted by Narsham If I were making such an argument, though. I could reasonably muster that arresting and odd image as contributory evidence. There are too many obvious references to the Bible in general and Revelation specifically to discount them. Narsham

Sort of. There are obvious references. But their meaning is unclear. This sort of thread wouldn't go on as long if people actually pasted in chapter and verse, since the general incoherence of Revelation, for example, tends to detract from the argument that the references to it in BIG O actually mean something.

quote:

Originally posted by A Clockwork Tomato quote: Originally posted by Narsham If I were making such an argument, though. I could reasonably muster that arresting and odd image as contributory evidence. There are too many obvious references to the Bible in general and Revelation specifically to discount them. Narsham Sort of. There are obvious references. But their meaning is unclear. This sort of thread wouldn't go on as long if people actually pasted in chapter and verse, since the general incoherence of Revelation, for example, tends to detract from the argument that the references to it in BIG O actually mean something.

Well, incoherence doesn't preclude meaning. Anyone who's gone to college knows that.

The point is that we can at best suggest and gesture at major themes using Revelation, not define.

But I wouldn't go so far as you seem to go.

First off, if you accept Revelation as a Gnostic text, most of the actual meaning is coded.

Setting that aside completely, though, I'd point you back to those posts on this thread (and a few others) which DO quote directly from Revelation. I don't think there's definition there, but there is meaning. Most of it is on the symbolic level, not the literal.

Would you deny, for example, that Paradigm City is explicitly positioned within the series as a version of the city presented in Revelation as Babylon?

I think the big mistake is in trying to equate Revelation to Big O. Big O clearly responds to, echoes, and yet departs from themes in Revelation. I don't think it so unambiguously accepts that Babylon deserves destruction, for example. But the two are in dialogue.

Narsham

Sorry...

That's basically what I've been saying this whole thread, ixp. There are many very clear allegories to the Book of Revelations in "Big O," but they are only there as a guide to character motivations, not to the overall plot.

But, I could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ix prefect I've just started watching the series, therefore don't really have much of a right to talk. But just as someone (an agnostic, actually) who makes a hobby of studying the bible, there are certain things that have come to mind as i glimpsed through this post. I should also probably mention the reason i started watching the series was because i was told it was an analogy to the Christian religion (please excuse me if i step on any fresh-washed toes). In fact, it was presented to me as being "an allegory over whether God made man or if Man made god." Relate these how you will: In the Dead Sea scrolls, specifically the Book of Enoch, we are told of a second fall of angels. The Watchers, who had been in charge of taking care of humans (similar to the Prometheus myth, actually), go too far. Not only do they teach them too much, but they intermingle with them-creating a race of half-breeds known as the Nephilim - who had the power of angels, but the will of humans. This is referred to only once in the bible we have, in Genesis: 6:1-"Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 6:2- "that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves all whom they chose." 6:4- "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 6:5-"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." 6:7-"So the Lord said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry I have made them.'" Pardon the long quote. The "sons of God" are commonly accepted as angels. The "giants" of course were the Nephilim. In some texts, just to show how different versions of the Bible can be, they eat all of the beasts and birds in their path, and drink all the rivers and fish as well. It was of course, at this point, that the flood happened. The Watchers fell not just for consorting with humans, but for refusing to kill their children. The flood was mainly to kill the Nephilim, but also to wipe the knowledge that had come with them away as well. Skip ahead, to the end of the book. The Apocalypse of Saint John the Divine. I'm going to avoid a lot direct quotes here, but i'll provide them if asked. I'm going to completely avoid what the symbols meant in actual culture as the whole thing can be seen as a political editorial. As well as the four horsemen (speaking of which, even though they had very specific jobs, they were only four angels amongst hosts-they were just the main ones active after the Great Flood) there were also mention of the Proclamations of Three Angels. Following the Proclamations, which are about the Beast, we come to the Harlot and the Beast. The city of Babylon is represented by the scarlet woman riding the scarlet beast. One quote about it (i can't help it)-18:7-"In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, 'I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow'." Skip back a little and to the side a good way... Rev. 2:17-"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes... a new name written which no one know except him who receives it." Naw, there aren't any parallels that can be found in between the two. Of course not. Nope nope. Oh, and just a few other little things, whether important or not i don't know. Early in the Jewish religion, Lucifer never fell. He was the Adversary-he served God as his reflection. But much as a reflection depends on it's creator, the Morning Star only acts in reaction to the will of God. Also, angels weren't truly protectors. More often they were destroyers. I think it was said best in the Prophecy movies: "Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" Oohhh... there's been roughly 4,000 years between the Flood and now. Officially, anyway. Is it possible that Angel, amongst other things, might also represent Mary Magdeline? The failed temptation of Smith, and all that... perhaps she is also a representation of what the city has become (sorry, i knew i said i wouldn't draw any conclusions from what i said above, but the Scarlet Woman rode the Scarlet Beast...) Maybe Fau is a reference to Faustus? I don't know if that fits... Anyone ever heard of what the rainbow symbolizes in Judeo-Christian Apocryphia? It is a promise, from God, that the world will not be destroyed by water again. Next time, it will be fire. Question... i've seen theories on most everyone else... what might Norman represent? I need more info before i form an opinion...

You beleive the flood was a hsitorical event? Intersting?

It is true that Aramaic fragments of IEnoch have been discovered among the Dead Scriolls, but this book (itself a compsoite of at least three earlier texts--the one you refer to is called The Book ofThe Watchers), it is nto sectarian text of the Dead Sea Sect. It is laso from Fragments of G reek translation in various Papyri--it was also known in this form to Tertullian who wished to make a cannoncial book fo the Old Testament. However the only compelte version is the translation into Ethipoic, since it is a cannoncial scripture of the Ethiopian church.

The fall of the watchers in IEnoch is not a second fall of angels, it is rather an alternative theolgoical tradition to that repersented in Revelation.

To clarify some of your points...Judiasm did not oringally posses a 'devil'. After many dualsitic elements were incorporated into Jewish Theology at the time of Ezra, various scriptural passages, including the paraody of the King of Tyre (Lucifer) and the Adversary in the Book of Job, were interpreted as refering to a Cosmic principla of evil opposed to God (in apocalyptic literature).

i dount if Mary magadlene and Faustus are worthwhile line of inquiry. Angel might correpsond more enarly to the use made of Helen of Troy in the Simonian tradition (this would at least explain her incarnation in a human body), but she remains essentially the Gnsotic demiurge.

quote:

Originally posted by RebeccaSHF I had someone point out to me once that Roger, Dorothy, and Big O all seemed to operate as one unit. In that case, it is easy to draw a parallel between them and the trinity of the Bible. One could interpret Big O as the "god" figure, Roger as the son (he's the human form and is attempting to save Paradigm City), and Dorothy as the spirit (She communicates with the megadeuses).

Yes, and also the Mind (divin part), soul (spiritual part), and body (physical apart), of a single entity--the substabce of my first post here some months ago.

quote:

Originally posted by ix prefect Cycles come into Christian tradition as well.

Your refering to Joachim of Fiore's 'four wathces of the night' or soemthign similiar? That is a reading of Greek philosophy into Christianity, and it not clear that it is Christian rather than heretical.

quote:

Norman reminds me a lot of Odin in many ways, not just the eye. He's definitely the wisest character in the series... a father figure to Roger... definitely a warrior, though secure enough not to flaunt it (Odin did always seem to let Thor take a more active role...

Many Anime characters have one eye. One also often sees japanese religious figurines that are either one-eyed or winking (i.e. I am not sure which). Does anyone know what being one-eyed means in Japanese culture?

I don't know but I remember seeing a one eyed samurai in one of the Lupin III mangas.

just thought i'd throw this www.sixfortyfive.com/bigo/wtf into the mix. The author of that site wrote up a pretty detailed analysis of the series and its symbols near the bottom of the page. Enjoy

I'm sure we'd already know about it since six was a member of these forums and alot of his work its a composite of alot of othe peoples theories that originated here.....

I am inclinded to agree with Pythagoras in the since that the biblical referances only serve as a character motivation, something that gets the story going but isn't the stories focus. I am inclined to believe that the real message of Big O is a very simple one. It is clearly evident that the downward spiral that the show takes starts when ever the major players in the series begin digging up the past. Gordon Rosewater delibrately forgot his own memories to protect himself from a damaging past. I believe thats why he told Roger that everything in the book Metropolis was a lie, to protect him from the past. No one in Paradigm excepting all the major trouble makers are conscerned with the past and they all live happy lives free of trouble (of the cataclysmic kind anyway). I think the real message is not to dig up a past that should not be ressurected. From the many frequent flash backs that occur in the series we see the world destroyed by giant robots and what happens at the end of the series? The world is detroyed by giant robots. Then Lucifer or Big Venus shows up to restart the world. Gordon knew what Angel was (she is his daughter after all) and knew what power could be unleashed if the past was dug up again. I think the protagonist in the series are those who are trying to keep things from being from restarted again and the antagonists are the blind fools who know not what they are getting into. Maybe Roger wasn't making a deal with the devil in the series to safe guard the world I think he was talking to Angel herself. Angel is the director of the world she is the key to stopping the restarts so he appealed to Angel in the end. Yes he was talking to Big Venus in the end but he was communicating with Angel through the device. In the last few flash backs we see Angel in front of a control panel apparently fine (her clothes are fine and she has no whip marks) and she is holding Metropolis in her hands. We then see that her name has replaced Gordons on the cover. In the next flashback you see Dorothy introduce Roger to her as she turns around from the control panel. The Negotiator has finally negotiated with the director of this world just as Gordan wanted. Perhaps Angel is the true focus of the actual story, perhaps she too has been suffering forced to see her past over and over again desperately searching for a way to change the past refusing to go on with her life. Finally through the efforts of Roger, Gordan, and Dorothy she realizes what happens when you seek to dig up and change the past and resets the world one last time and presses on through life regardless of the past and towards the future. But in short I believe that it is a parable for moving on with life instead of striving to change the past and that nothing good comes from digging up a tainted past such as the one in Big O.

quote:

Originally posted by GodofWar just thought i'd throw this www.sixfortyfive.com/bigo/wtf into the mix. The author of that site wrote up a pretty detailed analysis of the series and its symbols near the bottom of the page. Enjoy

I would like to see this, but when I click on the link I go to a page entiteled Forbidden (truncating the url got me an index of the site but clicking on big o folder there got me back to forbidden). Can someone suggest a way I might see this page?