Full Metal Alchemist General

I'm really under the impression that you don't remember much about Brotherhood aside from the laconic main events and Tumblr posts about it.

Ed says he wants to see through the portal once more. Truth says "I can't, I can only let you see that much with the toll you paid." Ed also explicitly says "If Al lost his whole body, then he must have seen more than I have."

Yeah, Airin, it really just seems like there are a lot of things you don't understand or are misinterpreting in order to justify liking the 2003 anime more, and there's no reason to do that.

You can like whatever you want, but just don't act like things that were clearly explained or otherwise obvious weren't so, just to stretch into "a happy ending that doesn't make sense" or whatever.

Boy did I pick a place to jump to.

I watched this... what, 10 years ago now? I had no attention span whatsoever and no idea what the f'ck was going on. This film bored the snot out of me.

Despite that the melancholy throughout the film stuck out in memory. The fates of Gluttony, Envy, and Wrath all seemed more fitting than what we saw in Brotherhood (I hated Envy's fate, and preferred Lust's 2003 backstory).

I liken this to something I once heard from someone who was explaining the difference between the Trigun manga and anime - the latter /(manga) takes on a much bigger scope and better explains the setting, but the latter (the anime) is more philosophically endearing.

And I'm under the impression that you only read what you want to read (and what's your obsession with Tumblr, by the way? I don't even have one of those). See the Wiki article again. There's a correlation between how much you pay and how much truth you're given. That doesn't mean the price is immediately related with truth and only truth. It's immediately related with the monster created, and IN COMPENSATION is also a ticket to take a glimpse on truth.

It's not me here finding excuses to criticize a plot element. I have given my reasons to criticize those plot elements and at least some sources to back it up. And for the record, yes, all these things annoyed me already the first time watching the show, before seeing 2003, so it's not a matter of 03 vs. BH. If anything, you're refusing to see the potential plot hole and coming back with personal accusations instead of valid reasons to support your point. And don't even get me started with the "you don't remember this show". It was you who a few posts ago came up with the accusation that the parallel universe was a last minute asspull. Something which is not just an excuse to hate on 2003 just for the sake of hating, but which is also factually wrong. Images of the real world are seen from the very first time that the other side of the gate appears, and this happens in episode 29 (http://fma.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_29:_The_Untainted_Child_(2003_series)), so hardly "at the last moment". Not to say, that it couldn't have been planned even before ep. 29.

Look, if someone said that the seven homunculi's names make more sense in BH, that's something I'm willing to admit. If someone says that BH's animation is more fluid and that 2003 tends to look static during conversations, that's also true. If someone thinks that Dante's plan is convoluted, yes, I also think it is. If an Ed/Winry shipper comes and says that he/she prefers BH because that couple is realized, that's also a valid reason, as shallow as it may seem. Even if someone came and said that 2003 is creepy with all the Incest Subtext, fine; I don't think one needs to see it that way, but I understand why some people would, and 2003 is classified as such on this site, so whatever. And I don't even agree with the almost universal opinion (also by many FMAB fans) that Brotherhood ruined the Nina episode and rushed things during the first arc. The Nina incident still has an impact, and it only seems rushed if you're comparing it with the other sources. But in return, I also expect the Brotherhood fans to acknowledge their fave's faults when they are, instead of being uncritically blind to them.

Okay, I've stopped talking about 2003 after you post about that. I don't care about it enough to check out the fact. Yes, I admit I don't remember 2003 and I will not talk too much about it.

And I've criticized Brotherhood for some Adaptational Plot Holes (or lack or setup) and lack of screentime for my favorite character. I've also criticized Arakawa for some missed opportunities, Chekhov's Gun misfires, and lack of knowledge about gun safety.

I've also do not see your proof of accusations against mangahood, show us episodes, time frame, etc. And just because I don't remember 2003 doesn't mean you remember BH.

By the way, accusing people who disagree with you as "blind" does not make a good conversation.

edited 5th May '17 9:44:53 AM by RAlexa21th

No its not. The price for transmuting the body is literally just the materials paid, the fact that it winds up malformed is because the intent to resurrect causes the whole transmutation to go haywire. Marcoh and Mustang can both create synthetic human bodies which can pass as human in an autopsy, and this is how the Hommonculi are made, synthetic human bodies with a Philosopher's Stone as a battery fueling their powers.

Ed can give up his gate and that is equivalent to Al's body because he is giving up the whole damn thing, Al still only received a fraction of whats inside for his entire body. Hence their new receive one and give two philosophy.

You can source the wiki all you want, but it wouldn't be the first time its been wrong.

edited 5th May '17 10:11:43 AM by lycropath

There is no new argument here. You're still not showing specific proof that the price is paid for truth and truth alone. It's your interpretation of how things went. As it's also your interpretation that Ed gave up such truth in the end. He gives his ability to do alchemy, that's what the scene shows. An ability that he had long before doing human transmutation and as such is in no relation with the loss of Al's body.

But let's assume for a moment that you're right, that the loss of body parts = the truth learned, and that giving up the truth = recovery of body parts. Why doesn't Ed recover his leg? (specially if he's giving even more than what he took to begin with, and his leg is in closer relation with his offering). And if it's so obvious that you're paying for truth, and thus the equation is so simple, why didn't Ed come up with such solution long before? Hell, why didn't Al give up his own alchemy long ago to recover his body? According to you, it's obvious for the casual viewer that the toll is equivalent with the truth learned. But somehow this has escaped Amestris alchemists for so many years, after so many human transmutations throughout history? Don't you see that by sticking to that interpretation you're creating even greater plot holes?

Do you want a simpler explanation to avoid the plot-hole? A very literal Deus Ex Machina: Chaotic Neutral Truth decides to turn into Lawful Good all of a sudden, and as good god rewards good guys out of grace, and punishes bad guys (Father) out of divine ire.

When has Truth ever be Chaotic? It's the representation of the rules of the universe and its job is to punish people who sin. Father sinned, he gets punished. Edward amended for his sin, he gets a refund.

And Ed did not gain back his leg because he has never traded anything for his leg.

Also, literal Deus Ex Machina does not necessarily means metaphorical Deus Ex Machina.

edited 5th May '17 12:55:42 PM by RAlexa21th

Truth is chaotic in the sense that he takes random tolls on people and doesn't care about the motives or morality of such people. Why would he punish Al more than what he punishes Edward? Losing your whole body is hardly comparable to losing your leg, and Ed was more responsible than Al since it was his idea to do human transmutation. Al was more of a passive partner. And when had Truth behaved in a morally way before the very end? He was amoral at best, if not downright sadistic. Mustang was forced into human transmutation, he wasn't guilty at all, and yet he was struck there where it hurts the most. "Do you want to see your country's future? Well, take that." Truth could have taken anything, a single finger, an ear. And yet he took something that would severly impair Mustang during the following fights. That he had Riza at hand was just a lucky coincidence. Riza could have been killed any time. So no, he was never portrayed as good and righteous before, yet suddenly he's caring about Edward's and Father's motives.

And wait, Ed didn't trade anything for his leg? What!? A moment ago it was said that Ed traded his leg for his share of truth (a lesser share than Al's because he gave less) and you were silently agreeing. Suddenly it's possible to give something and not receiving anything? Then where's the equivalent exchange? If Ed was giving back his share of truth + alchemy, the first thing he should have received was his leg.

The thing is that Truth isn't chaotic. Every thing he takes thematically ties to the individual, their desires, and what they are after. Ed lost his little brother, the one he swore to protect better than his father ever did, he lost his leg, and his ability to stand with pride on his own as he once had.

His arm? The right one, to get Al's soul back, to signify how Al was always right by him, his "right hand man" if you will.

Izumi lost several internal organ parts, all for a child she had lost, to signify how even if she wanted to try again, she never could.

Mustang's price? His sight, to take away his ability of pinpoint aiming, and to signify that he would never be allowed to see the future he was trying to build for the country. Well somewhat, that was the theme but if he truly wanted to blind Mustang entirely, he could just take away his eyes.

edited 6th May '17 6:28:00 AM by EchoingSilence

Father even points this out at the end of the series.

Ed not getting his leg back at the end of the series is symbolic; it's a way of showing that he can't do everything on his own. He literally cannot stand on his own without the help of his friends.

Also, were Truth chaotic, he'd have taken Mustang's eyes like he did to Jude, the Blind Alchemist. As it stood, he just took his sight since he was forcefully made to open the gate and it was a situation that Mustang was able to recover from a few days later.

edited 6th May '17 6:33:25 AM by Hobgoblin

x4 Ed gave his leg to as toll for the Truth and his arm to keep Al's soul

x3 There have been very few human transmutations in recorded history because only few people have the ability to attempt it let alone the mettle to do so. The only reason Ed alone is able to give up the Gate and escape the Truth with his life without being trapped in the white Void is because he can exit through Al's gate.

But more to that the point of Ed's solution is the irony is giving up what brings them closest to God never occurs to a proud alchemist like Ed, but after learning and growing as a person the solution seems obvious in retrospect. For extra irony by giving it up and humbling himself as human before the Truth is what lets him outwit Him,

edited 9th May '17 12:00:12 PM by lycropath

And I never said that the exchange didn't work at an ironic/symbolic level. In many ways is a retelling of Faust: lose yourself to the "devil" in exchange of knowledge, save yourself when renouncing it. It works at that level, but when applying the logical rules set before? Not so much.

The thing is, you keep insisting that the wiki's interpretation is wrong, but I don't see any good reason to follow your interpretation instead. Why exactly should I, if you don't offer better proof? You can make as many assumptions and headcanons as you want, but at the end of the day, there's only two objective, unambiguous facts: Ed traded his Alchemy for Al, and Ed had alchemy long before doing human transmutation. And a skill =/= person.

Besides, needing a Gate to exit shouldn't be a problem for any other alchemist. You said before that the toll was paid for extra knowledge, so there's no need to renounce your whole Gate. It's enough to renounce the skill to perform alchemy without a circle. Izumi could have regained her organs any time, following that logic. It's hard to believe she wouldn't, being such an experienced alchemist, no less than Ed. And I'm not so sure about human transmutation being so rare; people seem to be very aware of its consequences and the taboo. Iirc Cornello guessed what happened just looking at Ed and Al's state.

Think of it this way. The Truth and the Gate are the same the same as they are also Ed. When Ed sacrifices his Gate his Truth (As in the white smiling Shadow) vanishes with it Ed's leg and all. In exchange he gets Alphonse's Truth (Which since Al payed his whole self as a toll replaced the entire white smiling shadow). Since Edward and Alphonse are connected Ed has Al's Gate as "backdoor" so to speak to escape to the real world.

Roy himself says by rejecting his truth he could theoretically get his eyesight back but by doing so he would have no way to get back.

There is also a matter of the transmutation circle required to open the gate as Ed does is not something known to just anyone (Edward only gains bits and pieces of it over the course of the series from Labratory 5, the ruins of Xerxes and the shards in Gluttony's stomach).

edited 10th May '17 7:27:09 PM by lycropath

This is what I don't get. If we suppose that it's possible to sacrifice both your share of Truth and the lesser body part you paid for it (as in "don't give me back my leg, you can keep it as well"), how can this be equal to a greater share of Truth plus a greater body part? Al didn't lose his Gate. I could understand that "Ed's Gate" + "leg" = "Al's body" (that is, Al recovers his body but he isn't allowed to keep the Truth he got from it; that is, no Gate for Al either). I could also understand it if it was Al the one giving away his Gate and thus recovering his body. In that case Ed wouldn't lose or gain anything; he would be there just to bring his brother back. But "Ed's Gate" + "leg" = "Al's body" + "Al's Gate"? There's something given for free here.

The thing is, Al is recovering everything; at this point, both his soul and body have been taken, that is his whole self. And he isn't losing anything in exchange; he keeps his Gate since both of them exit through it, and therefore he keeps his alchemy. It's a win-win situation for Al. He goes from having nothing to having everything. Yet it's not a lose-lose situation for Edward. What he's renouncing is not his whole self, it's not equal, it was never equal to begin with.

It's a different situation with Ed paying an arm to fix Al's soul. We're comparing here apples and oranges, different things. In a fictional work we can assume that "an arm" = "a soul fixed inside an armor". But the situation at the end is not comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing two things that were paid in the same concept, in the same coin, so to speak. And the prices aren't the same.

Where are you getting that Ed payed for Al's gate?

Ed sacrificed his gate to pay to meet Truth again bring back Al's body that had merged together with his soul again, as well as allow them to get back to the real world. Al's own gate has nothing to do with it.

I've also noticed that you've been leaving that part out, that he needed to pay both to go there and to come back with all, so that's probably another reason your math doesn't add up right.

edited 11th May '17 5:48:45 PM by LSBK

Ed's barter at the end makes sense when you remember the price he paid for the knowledge he sought

It wasn't just he's leg... It was the only family he had left and his leg.

Ed paid his arm to get Alphonse's soul bound to the bloodseal... when Alphonse voided the deal, Ed got his arm back.

Ed giving up His alchemy is both the knowledge he received and the ability to EVER even try it again 'In a way he over-payed cause he could have gotten his leg back XD' and showed the humility in contrast to I'm gonna be god!

Now granted Ed could only pull it off due to Alphonse' gate and his being linked... so sorry Izumi

Roy losing his sight but not his eyes and his sight being recoverable is very clearly Truth going easy on him due to knowing Roy had no interest in what lays beyond the gate.... Hell you could argue Him giving Roy Circle less Alchemy was making the one Alchemist Father considered a threat even more dangerous cause now Roy doesn't need a circle he just needs something for ignition!

So Truth may have been actively out to screw Father over

edited 11th May '17 6:46:55 PM by FrozenWolf2

I didn't mean that Ed payed for Al's Gate literally. But Al kept his Gate even if he shouldn't, so in a way, he got it from free. It was seen before how voiding a deal worked: Al renounced to his soul seal, and what they got in exchange was exactly what was paid for that seal (an arm), nothing more and nothing less. So Al recovering his body should have invalidated as well what he got in that deal, and that was his Gate of Truth, not Ed's. Specially not when it was previously established that Al's truth was worth more because he paid more.

The math is very simple. Let's say you pay 5$ for 5 books and your brother pays 10$ for 10 books. Then you go back to the librarian and return your 5 books, but you tell him that you don't want your 5$ refund. What you want is that he returns the 10$ of your brother. And besides, your brother is going to keep his 10 books. Don't you see that this simply doesn't work? And if the librarian accepts, he's losing exactly 5$, he's giving something for free. The situation at the end with Ed and Al is exactly the same, just replace "dollars" with "body parts" and "books" with "shares of Truth". Ed is giving a lesser thing for a greater thing, and he's allowed to get away with it for no other reason that Truth being specially generous that day.

You can argue that Ed lost much more than his leg, that he lost Al as well and that was what mattered the most to him. You can also argue that losing his alchemy was a low blow. But that's just symbolic. And I already said that the exchange works at a symbolic/poetic level, but not when following the logic of equivalent exchange. The emotional impact on Ed when Al losed his body shouldn't matter for the deal. Al's loss was his and his alone. Just as the emotional impact on Ed because he lost his alchemy shouldn't matter; that doesn't mean that his Gate is automatically more worthy itself.

The problem is...

THERE IS NO HARD Price baseline for you to use... Every price is Largely symbolic You cannot make a price comparison... cause the prices make no sense. if you are trying to apply logic to it

You are trying to make a Square peg fit in a round hole

Because if you want logic

Izumi and Ed only lost A body part for attempting human transmutation 'Her womb, and his leg'

ERGO

Al should have lost a body part... He didn't lose a body part... HE LOST HIS WHOLE FUCKING EVERTHING and only got his Soul back cause Ed gave his arm up fr him.

Which pretty much breaks any attempt to make this a hard math equation

In the words of Davy Jones "One Soul is not equal to another"

The math doesn't make sense, to begin with

edited 12th May '17 2:23:02 PM by FrozenWolf2

I have already addressed the problem of comparing two different things that have nothing to do with each other. How many arms costs the fixing of a soul? How many organs costs human transmutation? How many chickens costs a pig? There is no set price here, so the quantity can be as much as you want, or as much as you're willing to pay. But how many dollars cost 5 dollars? How many kg. of iron can you transmute with 5 kg. of iron? There's only one answer here, because you're speaking in the same coin. That's the deal. The exchange at the end can be compared perfectly because it was paid in the same coin and in the same concept. Moreover, the show itself compares it and concludes that Al got more and paid more.

If Ed had tried to exchange something entirely different, then equivalency would be more subjective. Let's say, he could exchange 10 years of life for Al's body. Is that equivalent? Well, perhaps, why not? Depends how much you value 10 years of life and how much you value your brother by comparison. Any other thing would have made the comparison much more difficult and subject to interpretation. The thing is, he's exchanging PRECISELY the one thing we all know that is worth less, because the show says so. And it's also violating the rules set just a moment ago, that when voiding a deal, you get just what you paid for it (Ed's arm for Al's bloodseal), not some random thing of your fancy.

Vol 17 highlights!

Falman: They take an innocent child hostage? How cruel! Olivier: eh, I'd do the same thing.

My eyes could be playing trick on me but I'm sure that the nationwide circle isn't really "perfect." That's a nice touch.

Arakawa complains about her editor always interrupting her meals, even in a middle of a mountain trip. Is that why she draws him with a weird haircut?

Vol 18 highlights!

Author notes: my niece and nephew call me "stupid" so often that one day I replied "I am stupid, that why I don't get a real job and spend my time drawing manga." To which they immediately responded: "you're right!"

Kimblee gets offended about being called a pedophile and a homunculus.

When Winry bandages Scar, she actually applies the old rag above the wound, not on it. Kudo.

When Ed rejoices at his lightweight limbs; Al points out that Ed is out of balance too.

I don't think Ed really punches lighter with his arm. Since force = mass x acceleration, his quick attack would makes up for the lack of weight. After all, if you tap someone fast enough, you can knock them out cold.

edited 24th Jun '17 8:04:26 AM by RAlexa21th

It depends how much faster he attacks compared to how much mass he lost, but yeah, I think the difference would be little, if not outright negligible.

edited 24th Jun '17 9:35:43 AM by TheAirman

Sorry that I missed the discussion here. I would just like to say that the manga is best viewed as a sophisticated shounen fighting series that is still remains in the genre, while 2003 escapes the genre, in both good and bad ways.

It's not just that the manga has a clear villain and most of the plot is about everyone else uncovering the plot and coming together against him. It subverts the genre in several ways: fights flare up all the time and often for little reason (rather annoyed me) in which the heroes have to use their wits - not always to win, but just force a stalemate or run away; instead of the power escalation codified by Dragon Ball, the brothers start off strong and only learn a few new tricks over the whole run; and the last decision is to give up that power. That exchange strained disbelief for me (though not as much as trading years of Al's life) but makes some sense in the context of the genre.

I really think Arakawa should have realised she could not handle darker themes in a story that kept reverting to light adventure. They ended up being resolved too simplistically. 2003 starts off quite light but builds on those themes in meaningful ways. Characters change from limited by means to deeply flawed. On the other hand there are few good fights after it diverges, the alchemy is even looser and not used creatively, and the coup d'état felt like an artifact from the manga, since the real climax was entirely separate.

What I meant by the Ishbalans becoming pawns is that in the manga they help bring down Father's government. So they are guaranteed some leverage over whatever comes next. 2003 handled the issue of racism better but failed to give agency to any but Scar, so the promise in the finale had no backing. And while Scar's redemption arc was somewhat wrong, in 2003 he is essentially the same without the redemption. He dies having only made things worse for his people.

Um, what, there are always reasons to fight.

And when soes Al's years get traded? It's Ed who trades his life span.

edited 25th Jun '17 7:10:48 PM by RAlexa21th

Seriously, some of the fights in the manga made me go "what, more?" Especially the orphan with the leg automail (not so much the fight itself, but the resolution in which she pulls off an instant redemption and Ed seems to be blamed when he was being reasonable for once) and that between the brothers and Ling's servants when they first meet. They're very creative battles, but there's nothing at stake.

I was referring to the end of 2003, when Ed brings Al back by rejuvinating him to before they left home. That was a real "wut?" moment.