Confused about Season 2?Or anything else?...me too! Doesn't anyone have any answers???

For all my 26 bashing, I loved ep 14.

1. Becuase it was intreseting even though it was a bit wierd.

2. They eventually returned to the original characters and settings!

I had some pretty interesting theories going through my head while watching Act 14 last night. I'm going to try and watch the rest of season 2 and try and work out everything. I will try to explain everything in a literal way. NO SYMBOLISM. (as much as I love it)

When I finish, I will, of course, post my theory. This is all if I have time, however. I'm too freaking busy! I can't wait til Christmas vacation.

"2. They eventually returned to the original characters and settings!"

Would you have liked it as much if they had actually kept the setting the way it was in 14 through the whole season, leading up to when the 'Event' really happened?

Thanks! I love reading all of your comments on this series. I wish I could've found this board during the first season.

The problem for me (and keep in mind, I've only seen one episode of the 2nd season) is that the two seasons have different storytelling styles.

I don't mind what they're shooting for in the 2nd season, it's just that the pacing seemed much more frenetic in the opener. I liked the slow pacing of the episodes in the first season - it was part of the charm. There was still a sense of mystery to it, but there was also sense of time. Hours and days passing.

The first episode of Season 2 is a little like being in an Escher drawing. Everything is right side up, or is it?

I'm not arguing the nature of narrative fiction or that Roger is the central character to Big O. Those are givens.

The storytelling style changed and I guess, most importantly, the overall concept changed in Season 2. By introducing the idea of paradigms.

But I can only speculate, not having seen all but one episode of Season 2.

quote:

But that part of the show was resolved in STRIPES, wasn't it? The whole question was dead after the scene with Angel and Roger on the beach.

Either you didn't understand what I wrote or you're trying to dodge it. There was nothing to resolve in that theory. It was never a real theory to begin with, it was an example. My point is that the ending was so out there that I could say the whole plot was all about Dorothy and Angel repeatedly trying to find out who can get Roger(loop after loop), and you could not prove me wrong. I put absolutely no thought into that theory, and because of the two minutes at the end, you can not find one shred of evidence, proof, rumor, or anything that says it's wrong. We have theories ranging from robots to toys, memories to metaphors, histories to staged scenes. Yet not a single one of these can be said was wrong.

The show was great for 25 episodes and 23 minutes, but the abundance of theories show one thing: people trying to justify why the last two minutes were good. Why are we doing the work? And don't bother with the silver platter reasoning. Having to think is a far cry from creating excuses for the writers' mistakes. And that's what we're doing here. Making excuses for them.

quote:

People can't even agree about what constitutes "evidence," let alone "proof." You can't expect a consensus under such circumstances.

That's just side-stepping lawyer talk. The problem doesn't lie with the viewers if what they're presented doesn't make a bit of sense.

OMGWTF summed it up perfectly. If the evidence fits every theory, you don't have enough evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by OMGWTF [QUOTE] My point is that the ending was so out there that I could say the whole plot was all about Dorothy and Angel repeatedly trying to find out who can get Roger(loop after loop), and you could not prove me wrong.

EDIT: I can, because you're abusing the word "plot." Plot is the sequence of events that's shown to the audience. "Plot" is very cut-and-dried. (The traditional word to use when dealing with speculation and subtext is "theme.")

It's almost impossible to prove dumb theories wrong. There are still people who believe that Elvis is alive. If you dug up his body, they'd say, "It doesn't look like Elvis to me."

In areas where proof is important, such as science, people frown on theories that can't be proved wrong, since anybody can come up with theories that can't be proved wrong -- about anything. So rather than worry about "non-falsifiable" theories, which anybody can invent by the hundreds, people in the science biz focus on "falsifiable" theories -- ones which, if wrong, can be proven wrong.

quote:

The show was great for 25 episodes and 23 minutes, but the abundance of theories show one thing: people trying to justify why the last two minutes were good. Why are we doing the work?

Actually, I don't think I've seen the question asked before.

If you ask me, what happened is that they had about one episode more of story to get through than they had episodes remaining in the series, and a lot of material was left on the cutting-room floor in Act 25 and Act 26. The Behemoth sequence was obviously truncated, for example.

If many minutes of the last two episodes had to be cut, then the action had to be carried forward with little more than hints in a number of places, which some viewers picked up on and others didn't.

If this is the case, then there is the intriguing possibility that the missing footage could be restored at relatively little cost -- just editing work, with no original production work at all -- turning Acts 25 and 26 into Acts 25-27.

And now you're going after single words. You know well what I'm trying to say, but you're going after little things. Plot, theme, purpose, destiny, ju-ju, I don't care. Use whatever you like, but you're still dodging my point. Instead of debating it, you are running through semantics and specifics of the way I write. What next, spelling?

quote:

It's almost impossible to prove dumb theories wrong. There are still people who believe that Elvis is alive. If you dug up his body, they'd say, "It doesn't look like Elvis to me."

Wrong. The theory can be proven wrong, it just won't be accepted because of ignorance. The situation we have here is that we don't even get to that point. Fine. Screw "prove" and "proof". There hasn't been one case where anyone can even CONVINCE another that their theory is the right one. It's just a bunch of "Wow, I like you're theory. Here's mine." Even those who thought it made sense can't agree why it made sense, much less SHOW others why it made sense.

The only thing that's been done is mincing words. "You have the definition of plot wrong" or "What is the definition of proof" or "Roger can be using Big O to fight a giant Michael Jackson, but it doesn't matter becuase it's all about Roger". This isn't reasoning. They're excuses for a great show that went on TU the last two minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by OMGWTF And now you're going after single words. You know well what I'm trying to say, but you're going after little things.

No, I can't tell what your point is, exactly. There are about a dozen related issues here, and if put into question form I can answer most of them with a "Yes" or "No," but I don't know which ones you really mean.

quote:

Plot, theme, purpose, destiny, ju-ju, I don't care. Use whatever you like, but you're still dodging my point. Instead of debating it, you are running through semantics and specifics of the way I write. What next, spelling?

I'm still not sure what your point is. Could you please restate it, all by itself?

And words are important. "Plot" is very different from the other terms (theme, concept, background, meaning, etc.) in that it's 100% mechanical and contains no nuance at all. It's just one thing after another. It's pointless to argue about plot in Big O; you watch it on the screen, and the sequence of things that happen are the plot. The distinction is very important, at least to writers.

quote:

...This isn't reasoning. They're excuses for a great show that went on TU the last two minutes.

What does "TU" mean?

If your point is, "The ending was more obscure than it should have been," I agree with you. It was.

If your point is, "The ending was totally meaningless," I disagree.

I also disagree that it went south in the last two minutes. As I said before, I thought things were pretty shaky in Act 25 as well.

Whether you would have liked the ending any better if it had been drawn out to full length is another question. I don't know. I think I would have liked it better.

Personally, I was reasonably satisfied with the ending, warts and all, and saw no reason why the show couldn't pick up the ball and go on for a third season. To prove this to myself, I started writing a third season on my own. It wasn't that hard.

I guess the question I would ask is why anyone has to be "proven" wrong or right in the first place. Disagreements over the S2 finale's relative merits aside, it seems that this series always has been about what some historians call "an answer in lieu of the answer." I could rant for at least five minutes about the intentional fallacy, but I usually try to ride my own hobby horses in private, so I'd suggest that if you come up with an answer and experience it as your own, isn't it in a very real sense the "right" answer, for you?

Yeah, it's wanky and pseudo-profound. I can live with it, though.

If only they would translate the Big O companion book

You all should submit your issues of season 2 to sunrise/bandai america.

My point, in as-simple-English-as-possible, was that the ending, when compared to the rest of the show, was so confusing(for lack of better word) that not a single person knows what to make of it. When the reaction is neither applause, satisfaction, or disappointment that's the warning light flashing. Even the hokey stuff from episode 25 felt like they were part of the show's mysteries. The ending of Act 26 looked like they pulled it from another show or some bodily orifice.

No one yet can say why the ending was good. The only answers you get are "it answered some questions" or "left open for another season". Other than answering little details, NOTHING about the purpose/reasoning/overall whatever was answered. And the ending did not leave a third season open. It just didn't answer any of the questions about why we watched the show for 26 episodes. This was not a cliffhanger. It was a sudden stop. And how can they run out of time on a production that had a planned beginning and end. Season 2 had all its episodes purchased at once-Sunrise knew how many they were making. That's just another excuse.

And I can't believe you're still going on about the word "plot". I am not an English major. I do not know the technical differences between story/plot/magical reading force. Can you honestly not read through what I write and not get hung up on SINGLE words without understanding the point?

It's not that anything needs to be proven, it's the fact that nothing can be proven that shows how poor the ending is. This isn't about disagreement, but the lack of any agreement.

TU means: (spoiled to not offend anybody)

spoiler (highlight to read):

tit's up. When you die/go all to hell/go crazy and collapse and fall on your back, your nipples point up. Thus: tit's up.

It meant the ending went all to hell.

quote:

Originally posted by MetalGoldKnight "2. They eventually returned to the original characters and settings!" Would you have liked it as much if they had actually kept the setting the way it was in 14 through the whole season, leading up to when the 'Event' really happened?

Not really,but the 1950's new york like setting was still kind of interesting.

Ok so we've come to the conclusion that, the only part of the show that we have a problem with is that last sequence where the superdome dissapears, venus shows up, and everything fades away.

But ignoring any sort of metaphorical meaning it sort of makes all other 25 episodes kind of irrelvant becuase in the end it just all dissapeared.

Ill be wrong if they ever do make a 3rd season though.

"Ok so we've come to the conclusion that, the only part of the show that we have a problem with is that last sequence where the superdome dissapears, venus shows up, and everything fades away."

Well, a few other scenes in 26 and even some parts of 25 got a bit too far out as well, but yeah, my main problem is how everything just goes all wonky at the end. Mainly because:

1. It doesn't explain any of the answers we've wanted, and just raises more questions. Yes, I know the whole series has been like that, but it never got this far out before, and the fact that this is the finale means they should explain something. And before someone says, "Well we know what happened 40 years ago, Big Venus reset Paradigm", that doesn't explain anything. What originally caused the loop? Why does it restore everything in the city exactly the same, even ruins, but erase people's memories? What's the point of the Director's Room? Never even bothered to be explained.

2. It makes the series, but especially the Big O/Big Fau fight, totally pointless. The fight never even concluded, and even if it did it wouldn't had mattered. If Roger drowned or got killed by Big Fau everything would've turned out exactly the same. Dastun's sacrifice? Pointless. Dorothy's resurrection? Pointless. Beck's reform? Pointless. The previous 25 episodes that have been building up to this? Pointless. And they never even explained what happened to Fau and Rosewater. Would he and his Megadues be reborn again in the reset version of Paradigm City like everything else Big Venus 'deleted'? Did Angel/Venus choose to banish him to oblivion and leave him out of the cycle from then on? Would Fau be scattered into ruins again like it was at the start of the previous loop? It's never made clear.

say all you want about act 26

but Act 26 has the best animation, acting, and music of all the acts in season 2 IMO other than act 14. ESP DATSUN! Which its why this episode is in my top 5.

did anyone say anything bad about the animation OR Dastun.

The whole venus thing was just what we're wondering about.

usually when movies or shows have wierd endings if you look hard enough you can see clues to see it coming, and they spend a little more time on it.

The venus thing happend extremely quickly and it was very unexpected no one could have predicted it.

Sure you can analayzed big o and gotten clues for the whole thing bein a show "ACTs, all this talk of portraying roles, big o showtime, etc" so i guess ep 25 is covered. But that last part with venus was just kind of random.

But the begining fight with fau and o was kick ass and that whole dastun thing was cool too.

quote:

Originally posted by BigO-SHOWTIME say all you want about act 26 but Act 26 has the best animation, acting, and music of all the acts in season 2 IMO other than act 14. ESP DATSUN! Which its why this episode is in my top 5.

Unfortunately, you need more than that to make a show. Tons of great animation, acting, and music amount to nothing if there's nothing to hold it together.

quote:

Originally posted by OMGWTF quote: Originally posted by BigO-SHOWTIME say all you want about act 26 but Act 26 has the best animation, acting, and music of all the acts in season 2 IMO other than act 14. ESP DATSUN! Which its why this episode is in my top 5. Unfortunately, you need more than that to make a show. Tons of great animation, acting, and music amount to nothing if there's nothing to hold it together.

sorry, i actually liked the episode. I believe there is an explanation of it and probably the big O companion book would have shed more light on it.

DAmmit! No one is saying they didn't like the episode! I'm saying I don't get it, and unless there is some sort of season 3 or someone finally "figures it out", no one will get it.

quote:

Originally posted by BigO-SHOWTIME sorry, i actually liked the episode. I believe there is an explanation of it and probably the big O companion book would have shed more light on it.

No one said the episode was bad, but saying it was great simply because it had the best animation, music, and acting in Season 2, is absurd. If that's all you need to be satisfied with episode 26, well that's all that needs to be said. You don't need to justify why you like it, but if you want to debate why it was good, you'll need more than animation, music, and acting.

Of course there was an explanation. Unfortuantely it wasn't done anywhere close to being considered good. And why does someone have to buy a book and learn Japanese just to know what the hell is going on? Besides, you'd figure by now, SOMEONE who can read Japanese would have found out what everything was all about.