Follow TV Tropes
There's nothing wrong with season 2's idea, but the execution is so sloppy to me I can't like it.
During time Tekkadan accepted Mackey offer he was acting as legit member, it does not matter whether he planned size all power eventually.
Tekkadan accepted his offer work for Gjallahorn not as part of helping him against system. This isn't matter of Mackey or audience, but Tekkadan's perspective alone. Them accepting offer prove they are willing work for and were part of "corrupted" system.
Edited by Tenzen12 on Oct 1st 2019 at 7:10:13 PM
As someone who has only watched this Gundam, I found season 1 good, but noticeably sloppy in some parts as it was trying to find its footing. Season 2 is where it really came into its own and became something special.
It is rather special for the franchise.
It is literally the only show that ends with the protagonists slaughtered to a man (at least the ones who fight), their name dragged through the mud & paraded like a desecrated corpse such as what Achilles did to Hector, while the people (that includes evil corrupt authority figures) responsible reap the benefits & live happily ever after.
That is fucking hilarious the more you think about it. At least Kammile got to kill the main bad-guy before he got brain-deaded.
Edited by slimcoder on Oct 2nd 2019 at 12:31:00 PM
To be fair being brain dead it made him much better person, so Zeta was pretty much pure happy end...
Edited by Tenzen12 on Oct 2nd 2019 at 9:47:38 PM
It was only Barbatos head that was paraded around. Julietta did NOT wave Mika's body around like that.
But the memorial for the deceased was desecrated.
That's true he was Gjallahorn member who made them offer they couldn't refuse. They having previous bussesines dealing helpedz but they didn't sign for revolution until... they did.
Also, claiming that McGillis was not really fighting Gjallahorn because he was an Internal Reformist directly contradicts the praise Rustal is getting when he did the exact same thing.
And the whole idea that Tekkadan was as bad as Gjallahorn, therefore they deserved to lose, reeks of the false balance fallacy.
Honestly, I do not understand how this is so hard to grasp, and I feel like the only reason people consider the ending “realistic” is because of the pessimism that has become widespread, the idea that the world sucks and depressing and nihilistic = realistic. And stories that run on this principle under the misguided belief that it is deep and meaningful just make it impossible for me to care. As Gajin Goomba once said about stories like this, “there’s just the simple and sobering story of ‘life is cruel, then you die.’” And that is a sad was to go through life. I just do not think that happy endings are as unrealistic as they are often made out to be. At least, they could have shown Gjallarhorn’s victory starting to backfire on them as described above.
And the whole ”it was a tragedy” thing does not work either sun even William Shakespeare had the characters achieve something. Romeo and Juliet died, but made their families realize how pointless their feud was. Othello killed Desdemona, but realized that Iago was behind it and had him arrested. Hamlet, just before his death, successfully avenged his father and killed Claudius. The characters met a tragic end, but they still achieved something, which made the ending feel satisfying and meaningful. (Macbeth, an exception who died only having ruined his country, was clearly the main bad guy anyway, so it makes sense.)
Tekkadan? Achieved NOTHING. They might as well not have bothered. And as a result, the ending makes the story feel pointless. It would be like if, to return to the Macbeth example, Macduff and Malcom failed to overthrow Macbeth and died, with all their supporters being destroyed as well, but then Macbeth suddenly decided to make a bunch of democratic reforms and became beloved for it while his enemies became hated in the public eye.
Wouldn’t have been a satisfying ending, now would it?
Edited by MasterN on Oct 3rd 2019 at 7:27:39 AM
Okay, you've got to quit your strawmanning. Literally no one was saying that Tekkadan was as bad as Gjallerhorn (EDIT: I stand corrected. Someone said that. They're wrong. Leaving this here to document my shame).
And you keep harping on about how people fellate the ending for being realistic when that's not really anything that anyone has said here. Closest thing to that is someone saying their downfall was a natural progression, but that's not the same as "realism is grimdark" that you're complaining about.
Edited by Larkmarn on Oct 3rd 2019 at 11:35:30 AM
First of all saying Tekkadan didn't archieve anything is wrong. They removed all obstacless that stood in way of reforms and made them possible. Surviving members of Tekkadan finally found place where they bellong and where they don't have to fight anymore. It's exactly like Othello or Romeo and Juliet
Also it's not like Tekkadan "deserved" to be defeated because they were equal-ish bad. (If you really want say Gjallahorn was worse it's arguable, but not necessarily wrong, Regardless who was worse, Tekkadan didn't have moral high ground joining Mackey) They were defeated because they were short-sighted, ambitious and tempted fate too often.
I did said that at some point. It might be wrong wording, but I did. My point was IBO was never about good vs evil and that Tekkadan was in wrong when joined coup.
Edited by Tenzen12 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 5:27:59 PM
The memorial wasn’t desecrated
It actually gained a tribute to Mika and Akihiro
We literally see that Tekkadans actions did achieve something, the goal of making better lives was achieved. Most of the kids end up with better lives through the remaining connections they have, and the ones who didn't, pursuing revenge chose it, especially when the kid leading the revenge spree does so out of guilt over Orga saving him.
Heck we see some of them working as teachers/an orphanage, don't remember which. Snce it was the Human Debris that got the system started, Rustal had it outlawed so another Tekkadan can't spawn from it.
One can lose and still bring about the change they sought from the product of their actions. It happens all the frickin' tome in media when a villain has a point. Or some Antihero/Antivillain.
Edited by OmegaRadiance on Oct 3rd 2019 at 12:34:39 PM
Heh I can't help but snicker at the thought that Rustal will reverse all this whenever its most convient or beneficial for him.
Julietta is his successor and she has no plans to do such a thing.
Its a good thing she's not a rat then.
If she were, that would be on people who voted for her. That's how democracy works lol.
If Rustal decided to reverse it, it wouldn't be when it's most convenient to him, it would be when most convenient for system.
Edited by Tenzen12 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 11:02:11 AM
Except that in Shakespeare plays, the villain always loses as well. Even when the protagonists meet their end, the villain is brought down with them. Iago, Claudius, and Tybalt all suffered in the end.
In fact, the story of IBO is very comparable to Hamlet- a person with some standing in the ruling system (Hamlet/McGillis) decides to topple an Affably Evil but still corrupt leader (Claudius/Rustal) in part to seek personal revenge (but in the case of McGillis, as @Native Jovian made clear, he basically had no other choice).
The big difference, in terms of the ending? Hamlet WON. Even if he died, he managed to bring Claudius to justice. Even if this does not topple the corrupt system, even if Fortinbras will take the crown and continue to fuck things up, Hamlet still achieved what he set out to do- avenge his father. That is good enough for him, good enough for Shakespeare, and good enough for the story. Really, it is only considered a tragedy because Hamlet makes some big mistakes and pays for them through death- but even though Hamlet dies, he dies the winner.
Romeo and Juliet also die not by the hands of any villain, but through their own stupidity. They commit suicide. This makes the remorse of the family heads, who indirectly caused it through their feuding, feel genuine.
Machbeth dies, but he had become the villain by the end, so it is a fitting finale. The people he killed are still dead, but they were avenged successfully.
And Iago gets arrested by Othello for his crimes, averting Karma Houdini. In general, the tragedies of Shakespeare have true Bittersweet Endings instead of Downer Endings.
Rustal? He was the Big Bad from the beginning, is directly responsible for the destruction of Tekkadan, gets away with everything, and shows no true remorse but instead makes shallow democratic reforms only to stay in power. It tries to be a Bittersweet Ending but fails; as a result, the story feels less like a proper tragedy and more like a pointlessly nihilistic tale about how those in power will always win so you should just shut up and be content with being oppressed. Not only does this go against the essence of Shalespeare, it goes against every other Gundam series up to this point, in which, no matter how hard the fight is, no matter how long it takes, and no matter how hopeless it seems, the tyrants like Gihren, Jamitov, Paptimus, Haman, Muzuta, Djbril, etc. will always fall in the end. (In fact, the character page says that Rustal is an outright Expy of Gihren, just with a handful of redeeming qualities; even if he is slightly less bad, this makes his victory feel even less like a Bittersweet Ending and even more like a full-on Shoot the Shaggy Dog Downer Ending).
As another comparison, imagine if Claudius succeeded in his plan to poison Hamlet, and the story ended with him victorious. That is pretty much how IBO ended, and it is NOT how Shakespeare ended Hamlet. So do not say that IBO is a Shakespearean tragedy; if anything, it is a shallow imitation of one that misses the core of why the endings to his plays worked and felt satisfying. Shakespeare would Le not have ended the series this way. Likely, he would have had both McGillis and Rustal die, maybe even Julietta as well, and had Tekkadan lose overall but still able to cripple Gjallahorn to the point where their victory was only the beginning of the end.
Also compare to Zeta Gundam, another series praised for, among other things, the dark and brutal storyline. Haman technically won in the end, but the heroes still managed to take down the Titans, which was their main goal (Haman being more of a side thing) and her victory was a setup for the sequel. As far as I know, a Season 3 for IBO has not been mentioned.
Edited by MasterN on Oct 9th 2019 at 12:40:32 PM
He made actual democratic reforms, but Rustal knows how to exploit the system. As he always did.
Mcgillis was never a hero anyways. He was a villain in his own right who made some very, very, poor decisions acting on childish whims, and Tekkadan paid the price for indulging his fantasies.
Mcgillis also DID have a choice, but he never made the right ones. "My friends make me hesitate, I'll just murder them and use it to my benefit! That won't turn things against me at all!"
"Tekkaden are the idealize lone men striving to dtand at the top of the food chain to revel in their power! I've in no way fantasized them into something they're not! Especially Mika, who is most definitely not just an enable of Orga who doesn't see a point to his life beyond killing!"
"I know I'll exploit the very rules I'm supposed to be against as a reformist to take over Gjallahorn and become like my hero Agnika Kaieru. This will in no way backfire because my previous crimes, including MY scientists experimenting on Ein or Carta's death, will turn against me."
And the best part? The fact he acts rashly and goes to do the last one is explicitly what Gaelio figured he would do if he thought he was the kind of person he assumed he was, thus instantly foiling his plans to rule before it even began. But even Gaelio didn't assume he was still a child clinging to a fantasy.
Edited by OmegaRadiance on Oct 9th 2019 at 12:44:02 PM
So was Hamlet. He got quite a bit of innocent people killed and showed no remorse. And he WON. He died, so he paid for his transgressions, but he won.
And considering that McGillis tried everything he could beforehand but was attacked by Gjallarhorn anyway, the attempt by both the writers and some fans to justify Rustal winning by making McGillis out to be a dumb psychopath SMACKS of Ron the Death Eater.
Edited by MasterN on Oct 9th 2019 at 12:45:29 PM
Revenge is an empty, pointless affair, and treating that as winning these days only works if the person themself has the charisma to pull it off.
Not only did Macky not have that, he slowly descends further and further down till he's delusionally ranting about the glory of his power. His incompetence earned him the meme "MUH BAEL!"
And no Mcgillis did that himself with his actions, but only a nutjob would kill people they care about for making them "weak." Despite the fact they would have helped him if he asked or wasn't indulging his literal Power Fantasy
Edited by OmegaRadiance on Oct 9th 2019 at 1:00:22 AM
It's not about "how to make Rustal win", but "what kind of person can defeat Mackey". He and Tekkadan lost by own devices and Rustal was just tool to make it happen.
And of course Chocolate man was reckless psychopath from day one. There is no point of bleaching his pants.
Edited by Tenzen12 on Oct 9th 2019 at 11:41:19 AM
But he couldn't take the slow and steady approach with Gaelio holding a sword of Damocles over his head. So he did the best he could in the situation at hand... and came up just short.
The reason McGillis and Tekkadan lost wasn't because they got greedy and their reach exceeded their grasp. It's because one of the aristocrats they killed as part of their plan to overthrow the aristocracy inexplicably survived without them knowing about it, and was threatening to tell all the other aristocrats "hey, this guy tried to kill me because he wants to overthrow the aristocracy!".
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?