[Me]
FMA is one of the most praised anime from my teenage years. Back then, I wasn't a fan of it. The beginning didn't really grab me, and I didn't want to watch it. For years afterward, I said it wasn't worth watching when you could watch Brotherhood. I'd say back then: "Why waste time on filler?" "Why watch an old anime when you can watch this newer one, which has aged very well in every way?" Today, I know I was wrong, and there's nothing wrong with having two adaptations. Especially if they're good and emphasize different things. Today, I'll talk to one of them, Karol, about both series.
[Karol]
I remember you complaining about the old series. The claims that it's filler, that it's Brotherhood, that it's a waste of time watching something that isn't a faithful adaptation of the manga, were all well-deserved. We can finally talk about what the writers did better than Arakawa, what they did worse, and of course, how it performs as a standalone title. A bit personal at first, I first watched Fullmetal when it started its first or second broadcast on Hyper (an old Polish TV channel that aired anime). The funny thing is that despite watching it several times on TV, even when Hyper was glitching and the sound was muted, I never managed to watch the very end.
[Me]
I'll start from the end. When I think about both titles, I like to compare them, listing their strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, Brotherhood has fewer weaker moments, but more strengths. These stem largely from the larger budget and likely superior technical expertise, such as music, art, and animation. While the scripts for both titles can be described as equally outstanding, and it's difficult to definitively say which one was better written, Brotherhood is far superior to its older brother in technical terms. True, the 2003 anime has a few fights that were better than the newer version, but these are minor quibbles compared to dozens, if not dozens, of excellent fights. It's not in this league. The script is a different story. Without wanting to take away your arguments, I'll tell you which I liked better. I'll start with another, and in my opinion, better main antagonist than the Homunculus from the Lamp. Not that Arakawa's idea is bad or poorly presented, but I certainly can't say it's as good as her best storylines. While Father Homcunulus's plan is more impressive, and Dante doesn't get much screen time, I find her much more convincing and human. I know that was Hiromu's intention, to make him inhuman, but despite his willingness and good work, I think she contrasts poorly with the Elric brothers' master. I've seen Villian want to rule the world for similar reasons too many times, and it's no longer as appealing to me.
[Karol]
I won't discuss the technical aspects, as it's not very fair, but that doesn't apply to the music. I don't consider the Brotherhood version better; it's certainly more sublime, but it wouldn't have fit the 2003 version. In the original version, we have a much smaller story, so the soundtrack is also more down-to-earth. We didn't get as much orchestral music, because it would have clashed with the story. A major advantage of the older version is the reduced scale. We don't have a huge intrigue involving the entire power of the state and affecting all the inhabitants, but a story where a certain powerful figure slightly nudges some alchemists so that they unknowingly fulfill her whim and create her philosopher's stone. This also leads to a bit of debate about whether the law of equivalent exchange is true, something that isn't developed as much in Brotherhood. Only at the very end does Al mention that Ed hypothesized that you have to put in more than you get out. Certain plotlines in the 2003 version are, in my opinion, better thought out, such as Mustang killing Winry's parents, how the Homunculi were created, and why they're named after sins. Scar's murder of the Rockbells resonates much less, and the idea that some powerful being decides to strengthen itself by getting rid of what it considers imperfect within itself is a bit cliché.
[I]
I agree, it's not entirely fair, which is why I'm not comparing the two series in this regard, as I would, for example, with the power systems in OP and HxH. It was more about whether I enjoyed both series. Yes, animation is one of those aspects that gets old quickly, but despite the passage of time, it can still be impressive. Sometimes, adding simple effects, like in DBZ or OP, is enough – even if those scenes have simple animation, you can hide it. That's why I'm not very merciful towards old anime. Some might be offended by this, but for me, the old FMA is so-so in this regard. Aside from a few fights with Scar, I barely felt the power of alchemy in the 2003 series. It's different with, for example, DB or the first Naruto series (yes, I know, for obvious reasons, all of these series make a stronger impression). The first title was created much earlier, and the second not much earlier. In the first adaptation of FMA, I practically don't feel the strength, power, or emotions of the characters. It's a bit like the creators of good RTS games were tasked with making a third-person game. In a sense, they created a decent game with a good story that was well-presented to players, but the gameplay is underdeveloped or at best acceptable. In my opinion, it's worse than The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, despite having the potential to be, say, Assassin's Creed (however you judge that game, it supposedly has much better gameplay). To put it simply, the creators of the old anime could have done a bit better. As for the music, I generally agree. Both soundtracks are of a similarly high standard, so it's a purely subjective matter.
However, I disagree with the story. Maybe I'm wrong, because I saw Brotherhood a long time ago, but it seems to me that the moral of the new series is different from what you wrote. From what I remember, Brotherhood shows that different paths lead to the same solution, while the older series had several paths with different conclusions. Dante says that if you know a topic better and have access to better ingredients, you can compensate for many years of hard work by another person, which is closer to our reality. Brotherhood idealizes this a bit and emphasizes the principle of equal exchange, and the moral of the final episodes of the 2003 series shows that something can be achieved with less effort and resources. I prefer the 2003 version because it's closer to our reality. I also disagree with Roy Mustang, but that's purely subjective – I like both situations equally in terms of the motivation and the idea, but the 2003 idea didn't convince me. However, I do appreciate the Fire Alchemist's excellent and truthful speech about following the orders of his commanders. I agree, however, about the Homunculi and Dante, whose motivation was much more appealing to me than Arakawa's.
[Karol]
Dante tells Ed directly that the principle of equivalent exchange is naive. Just because you give something doesn't mean you have to get something in return. He gives Izumi's son as an example, who gave his life without receiving anything in return. Another example is the restoration of Al's body, where Ed sacrificed his own, which theoretically should have been enough, but it didn't end that way; Al also had to sacrifice the memories of their four years of journey. Why is Mustang's murder more powerful? The whole thing hits more personally. Roy is a guy who, as a military man, is tasked with protecting his country's citizens, and he kills them. Later, from Winry's perspective, the same man who took her parents takes away people he considers his brothers. He was even willing to sacrifice the death of a friend for a military career. Scar, to Winry Rockbell, is more like an idea, someone less tangible. This doesn't change the fact that it works within the story; Winry here implements what Scar's master had previously spoken about, namely, breaking the cycle of revenge. I would compare this to the OP and the arc with Arlong and Enies Lobby. For me, the story with the fishman is better because, despite its much smaller scope, it's more personal. The enemy isn't an imaginary entity like the Government, represented by CP9, but a flesh-and-blood character – Arlong.
[Me]
Sure, I understood what Dante meant when she told Ed about the principle of equal exchange. That's why the 2003 translation appeals more to me, because it can be applied to the reality we know. Part of our lives do depend on our choices, but in reality, they are primarily determined by chance (where we're born, the environment we grow up in, who we encounter in our lives). Even when we consciously choose or do something, everything is subject to chance, because we can constantly make bad choices, or we can ultimately do everything right, but make one mistake at the end that thwarts our efforts. I prefer this explanation to the principle of equivalent exchange known from Brotherhood – if you put your work, time, and resources into something, you will receive an equivalent of what you ask for.
Regarding Roy, as I wrote in the previous paragraph, I completely agree with your arguments. This makes the entire storyline more relatable to our characters and more tangible for the audience. I'll supplement your opinion of Roy with what I wrote earlier – his storyline shows that life isn't as simple as it's portrayed in Brotherhood. People, as well as morality, are more gray. This is more true to human behavior—few people are so sincerely evil or good. We and those around us often follow orders we don't want to, but either "that was the order" or sometimes we need to administer a drug that can kill, but can also save us from death, which is inevitable. Roy's story perfectly embodies this in the areas you mentioned, such as exploiting a friend's death to gain a better position in the army, to change the status quo, or to be forced to follow orders, because the army isn't a school trip where a student stomps their feet and defies the teacher. In the military, if you disobey an order, you get an exemplary punishment for insubordination, and someone will eventually carry out your order anyway. I'm not saying this is good or bad—it's simply the way it is for specific reasons. If there were more lawlessness in the army, it would have more negative consequences than positive ones. I'd also add that over time, among other things, Thanks to knowing you, I understood better why some events work better in a smaller format - they are more personal, and we, the viewers, focus more on the conflict itself, without being distracted by additions that, although enriching the story, somewhat dilute its main message.
Since we've talked about what the 2003 FMA does better, what do you think both series do equally well? That means you'd have to really think long and hard about which is better—the solution from the newer series or the older one. It's like choosing between two equally useful items in an RPG. For me, it's the events of Ishval. Initially, I thought they were poor compared to what was shown in Brotherhood, but the clever combination of Greed's chimera plots and Tucker's experiments on enhancing humans with animal genomes changed my mind. But first, let me explain my opinion, which you'll probably disagree with. Maybe I'm being insensitive, but the events of the first series didn't move me in the slightest. They neither made me sad nor made me feel sorry for its inhabitants, I did not feel the weight of the state's power as in Brotherhood or at least One Piece (I'm talking about Buster Call - for those unfamiliar with this title, it's about the use of a fleet of battleships that annihilated all the people on the island and any traces of their existence). Even the music, which I've grown to appreciate over time, didn't make me shed a tear during this scene, let alone Roy Mustang's involvement, which wasn't fully explained until the end of the anime. In Brotherhood, I felt a behemoth of a nation using every means at its disposal to crush a nation. Its power and ruthlessness were felt in every aspect—alchemy, conventional weaponry, and the common soldier who stared into the terrified eyes of people before taking their lives. Speaking of which, there were more scenes of their corpses or their reactions to the military that shocked me. The impact was enhanced by the somber music, which may not have been perfectly suited, but better served its purpose.
I changed my mind because of the involvement of the secret services. I don't know much about them; my knowledge is fragmentary, but I love watching them in action. Whether it's a fantasy title, a semi-realistic one (like Lupin III), or one that aspires to that title. If the writer knows how these things work, presents them correctly, and the director devotes adequate time to them, I'm as happy as 13-year-old me watching the first Goku vs. Vegeta fight. The provocation instigated by the Amestrian military looked much better than the Ishval holocaust, which we were shown dozens of episodes earlier. I felt a greater dynamism, a more intense atmosphere, and the special forces' action itself made a greater impression on me due to its larger scale. I don't want to compare them, because I like them equally, and the advantages are more or less balanced. And both actions show, albeit somewhat simplified, what a provocation in the Warsaw Ghetto during the German occupation might have looked like (if the tension had been even greater, because the murder of children of Polish or Jewish descent didn't make a sufficient impression on the ghetto inhabitants) or the Gliwice provocation of 1939. Brotherhood, although it looks better overall, has some gaps that are perfectly filled by the scriptwriters of the old anime, which is clearly visible in this example - we have a great military depiction, but the author forgot about the involvement of special forces, which are important in many conflicts between countries.
[Karol]
I also treat the action in Ishval as something on a similar level, although I'd more accurately say it was the military's general actions against minorities. Regardless of whether we're talking about the Red Eyes or Lior, both series present a rather powerful depiction of annihilation carried out by the military. The older version placed more emphasis on Rose's people, while Brotherhood focused on Scar, which is why 2003 has a better episode in Lior and 2009 in Ishval. This doesn't mean the differences are drastic, but the pacification of Lior benefits greatly from showing what it actually looked like and what its consequences were. Brotherhood has one episode about how the riots actually began, followed by the city's reconstruction. On the other hand, the Ishval massacre is more developed in the 2009 version, as are Hawkeye's memories (which are more developed in the manga), and Armstrong, for whom escaping from the front is still something vivid, which is partially demonstrated in Maria Ross's "death." In Hughes's character, we get a military man who, thanks to his family and for his family's sake, wants to forget the tragedy of war. The original version emphasized this theme much less. Yes, just like in the 2009 version, it was the starting point for Mustang. In both versions, it's the moment he decides he wants to take over the military to prevent things like this from happening. The same with Dr. Marcoh, but aside from the refugees and Scar's mission, that's practically all.
[Me]
It's good that you pointed out Lior, which in a sense fills in the gaps in the 2003 version regarding Ishval. I completely forgot about this storyline, which played out throughout the entire series—from the Homunculi's efforts to once again incite the crowd against the army, to the guerrilla warfare that led to the rape of Rose (it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but it was implied several times). It reminded me of The Witcher, when Sapkowski discussed incidents on the border between the northern countries and Nilfgaard, and our world, where tensions arise between various countries (e.g., India and Pakistan), which, if the balance is noticeably disturbed, can escalate into open conflict or the takeover of a given territory. As for the characters, aside from Roy Mustang's storyline, which is equally compelling in both series, I find Hiromu Arakawa's vision much more compelling. Especially in the case of Dr. Marcoh, who was less utilized in the older series. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the writers of the 2003 anime ran out of ideas on how to develop his role throughout the story. I see Scar and Greed's ending similarly – do you agree? As for the other characters, their storylines resonate more strongly, and I find them easier to relate to, not only from a personal perspective, but also from the perspective of humanity in general, and the conflicts between us.
[Karol]
For me, it wasn't so much that they ran out of ideas as that they simply decided not to continue their storylines since our Imperial colleagues were gone. In the manga and Broherhood, Greed is developed as Greelin, Marcoh only returns after Scar rescues him, and the Ishvalan's story is strongly connected to Mei and chemy. Instead, they gave Tucker more time, let Hughes live longer, Lust got more background, and the adventure in Dublith was expanded a bit. What was given to some characters was taken away from those who appear after the Greed plot. Such is the joy of inventing your own story.
Another thing I consider equally important is the overall quality of the story. Because both stories strike different tones, we're told a similar story, presenting similar issues but from different perspectives. The 2003 version focuses on a darker tone, while the 2009 version aims for more hope, and in their own way, they complement each other. What was weaker in Brotherhood has already been addressed (to some extent, as I don't want to break it down episode by episode), but it's compensated by things that are better, and there are some. But more on that in a moment. I'll also preempt something: I don't think combining the two would suddenly create a super-FMA, better than anything else; it would probably even lose some of its quality.
[Me]
While I agree with Greed and partially with Dr. Marcoh, I don't buy your arguments regarding Scar. I'm disappointed with the ending of the Ishvalan arc. She wasn't a weak, stupid, or unnecessary character; she could have been given a more important role at the end of her life or developed even further. And even if they had insisted she die right then and there, they could have come up with something better. Scar wasn't far from Ed, and the armor transformed into a bomb so slowly that he could have easily delivered it to him. When Scar sacrificed himself for Al, I felt like I was in the Kakuzu vs. Naruto fight, when Kishimoto took the Akatsuki member's brain for a few moments so Naruto could get rid of it. In Marcoh's case, I'm torn. While it's true that his role ended at that point and the creators met all the conditions for killing him (he had no way to escape, nor was he as strong as Scar to create a path), I think his storyline was abruptly cut short. It was as if someone chose a moment and cut his storyline too perfectly.
Regarding the second paragraph, I agree with every sentence, but the last one puzzles me. How do you envision such a combination of the two series? I assume you meant to combine the best qualities of both anime? I agree that this idea makes no sense. Firstly, the story would be overloaded with threads, secondly, some of them would have to be thrown out so as not to detract from more important events. In my opinion, this makes no sense, especially since both anime are very consistent (FMA less so, but these are minor elements that could easily be fixed), present a high standard, and their shortcomings are minor. In the case of the old one, it's the fights, while in the new one, it's the overly positive message, which is, in my opinion, too idealized. Both anime stand on their own, and any tinkering with them would only ruin them, in my opinion.
[Karol]
Example: In FMA, we're developing Greed's character, meaning we're introducing Greelin. This would end up taking up airtime from Wrath and Lust. The same with Scar, which would mean introducing Mei and Marcoh, which would require cutting time for other characters. A significant increase in the number of episodes wouldn't be a good thing, because the number we got was very good. The opposite would be true: developing Nina and Tucker's storylines would likely mean cutting other storylines. I'm not mentioning the script changes that would be required, which would end up being glued together with saliva.
Another thing that's on a similar level is the ending (I'm not considering the movie; there will be time for that later). Both are a bit disappointing, for different reasons, but still. FMA lacked a few episodes to wrap up certain storylines, and after the escape from Resembool, everything moved too quickly. More time could have been given to Hohenhem and Dante, and we could have gotten more interaction between the Elric generations. The history of Amestris from 400 years ago could have been expanded upon, why the old city ended up underground, why Christianity was wiped out. However, in Brotherhood, everything was so typical: the main character comes out dressed in white and kicks Villian's ass. The 2003 version tried to do something different and started too late for that number of episodes. The 2009 version took a safer route, which is why it loses out, since the rest tried to be something other than a typical battle-shounen.
[Me]
Responding to your texts regarding Scar - it was enough for me to handle his storyline in Lior a bit differently, i.e. to give him a real and unavoidable ultimatum - either you sacrifice yourself and we save the case, or you don't sacrifice yourself and all your effort goes to waste. As for the rest, I agree. To avoid repeating myself, I'll be brief: both series are perfectly balanced in terms of the number of characters and their storylines, and any changes in this area would do more harm than good. All it would take is a few more episodes, I think a maximum of five, to flesh out and flesh out certain storylines, such as the finale, which was painfully shortened. You (those who watched the anime live) must have been furious when the anime ended and we were given only a few minutes to see the consequences of the series finale.
I agree with all the comments you raised about the 2003 anime in the second paragraph. All those storylines you mentioned had the potential to be truly interesting. This could have made the series much deeper and more multifaceted; it's a shame it ended this way. I don't entirely agree with the comments about Brotherhood, because while the finale is indeed a typical battle-shounen, the fights are of an exceptionally high standard. The choreography, atmosphere, emotions, and character behavior are excellent; it's clear that this was created by a female artist with a great imagination, not some talented male creator like in HxH, etc. Just as I often like to mock left-wing circles that claim women are equal to men in sports, esports, etc., women also dominate men in culture, as evidenced by numerous examples. Let's move on to discussing the film, do you have anything else to add?
[Karol]
If you know me, you know that fighting is often a secondary issue for me, so I largely skipped it. I'm more interested in the story from the moment Father takes over the stone made of the entire country. The coup itself, Bradley's glorious return, the zombie attack, etc., are very well done, though they're a bit clichéd.
We still need to talk about what's worse. For me, my main criticism will be Winry and Risa. I don't know how widely Winry is received now, but I remember that 12 years ago, she could be considered the most disliked female character alongside Sakura, Orihime, and Hinata, which I disagree with both then and now. I have to admit, though, she was given much more time to develop in the remake. And while I didn't have any major complaints about Marcoh or Greed being weaker, as they were only episodic characters in the 2003 version, I can't defend that here, since she's a much more important character in the story. She's not poorly developed, but there's less of her in the older version, she's not as close to her brothers, and you don't feel as much attachment as in the new version. It's similar with Hawkeye; in the original version, she's just a subordinate with a certain degree of attachment to Mustang. Brotherhood fleshes out why she's so determined to protect Roy, and we get the beginnings of a romantic relationship. The film does try to develop these characters a bit, but let's be honest, not only is it 100 minutes long, but the girls won't be the main characters.
[Me]
Yes, I know you place much less importance on them than I did, but I interpreted your earlier words about the fights differently. I don't know what Winry was received like a dozen or so years ago, and I don't really remember how her younger version is perceived, but like you, I disagree. In my opinion, they can't be compared to Sakura, Orihime, and other irritating female characters, because both Winry characters have deeper personalities, are more independent, can cope without help, and can even contribute more to the story's development than shounen heroines envisioned by male authors. The heroes and heroines of comics by female authors are more fully developed and relatable, flesh-and-blood characters with much more developed personalities. Their emotions and personalities aren't as simplistic, difficult to describe with a few simple traits or catchphrases. This is also evident in their sexuality – Winry doesn't flaunt it like some heroines, but she's not a quiet mouse either.
As for the film, it unfortunately doesn't work well as an epilogue, as it only subtly develops certain issues. There were other, more important things to build (characters in an alternate universe, a reason for them to end up in the alchemists' world) that were supposed to make the film more compelling for viewers, have a more interesting plot, some conflict, and so on. While I enjoyed it as a true finale, I'm disappointed with the weak conclusion to some of the storylines. Unfortunately, that's the price of a feature film – everything usually looks better, and is usually better written, but there's not much time to develop the secondary characters and give them a satisfying finish. However, its unquestionable advantage is that we get an Austrian watercolorist and Maes Hughes, who is almost 100% Nazi.
[Karol]
The final major weaker element is King Bradley. And it's not like he's weak in the 2003 version or anything, but let's be honest, the original commander doesn't have half the charisma he did in the manga and Brotherhood. We didn't get even a fraction of a scene like his return from the assassination attempt, where Grandpa, standing in front of the gate, made Briggs' soldiers pee their pants in fear. Even General Armstrong and Mustang didn't inspire such fear and respect among their men. The original gives us the brawl in Dublith and the fight with Roy, but it's not on this level. The fact that he is Homculus is also a bit of a side note, I don't mind that we don't really know who he was during his lifetime, but I would love to see how he came to power.
[Me]
Oh yes, I completely agree. Every time I watch scenes with a genuinely angry Bradley, I can feel a very powerful aura coming from him. Arakawa can write and portray these scenes like no male shounen author. Even though he's just a character drawn on a piece of paper, you can feel his charisma and power in every word, movement, gesture, and strike. While reading your text, I refreshed my memory of the scene where Wrath arrives at his palace after a failed assassination attempt and massacres the elite Amestrian troops. His attitude, his line "You think I'm going to enter my own palace from the back...?" and his breaking through the defenses as if they were, at best, lead replicas of real soldiers, was epic. I felt a similar feeling when Scar also activated his "100% seriousness" mode or Roy Mustang killed Lust. Only a few male comic book authors have even remotely approached this level—for example, Akira Toriyama during his best moments in DBZ, Kishimoto in a few moments in Naruto, or Togashi. The latter came closest, though even he could only keep up with Ms. Arakawa, not lead her by the hand.
It's similar when comparing the old FMA with the new one. Bradley had a few short segments where I only felt a hint of the charisma he exuded practically every step of the way in Brotherhood, even in scenes where he wasn't showing his full strength. I'd also love to see flashbacks showing how Bradley from the 2003 version rose to power. Especially since, in my opinion, the old anime better addresses the political aspects of "Fullmetal Alchemist." I wonder what they would have come up with instead of Bradley, aka Captain America, who was brought to life by those behind the curtain.
[Karol]
It's time to talk a little more about the movie Conqueror of Shamballa, without comparing it to Star of Milos. For context, since it's a movie, I'm more lenient on the expansion of plotlines and consider it a conclusion to the series' story. Let's be honest, you can't build new characters and give the old ones time without any simplifications in 100 minutes. For as long as I can remember, he was always considered very average, which I disagreed with. I'll start with what I like about this film. History shows that Dante and Hohenheim are right; the principle of equal value doesn't apply. To recover Al's body, Ed had to sacrifice his own body, and the younger brother, for this memory. After Bradley's death, the military took responsibility for at least pacifying Lior, and Mustang was demoted and sent to Wypizdów Dolny, somewhere beyond Suwałki. We're stuck in a mix of sweet and bitter; Izumi dies before the film's action, Wrath during it, their deaths tempered by their reunion behind the gate. Winry grows in character. I like the character counterparts in our world, especially Rose. I just wondered why he reacted that way to Bradley. It's nicely shown that people fear the outsider, even when calling such fear irrational is too weak. The brothers' first meeting works very well, as the armor containing Al's soul is transported to our world. It's bittersweet again. On the one hand, Ed knows Al is alive and has renewed hope that he can return to his senses. On the other, the meeting could only have lasted a moment.
[Me]
Did internet users really rate this movie as mediocre? You surprised me. I don't remember how I felt about this film; I don't even have time to scour the internet for reviews (which isn't really worth it, as some of them have disappeared; it's been too many years), but after seeing it, my impressions were generally positive. I didn't like everything about it, and some things I actually disliked, but overall, it was a pretty good production. As I wrote in the article about "Halloween," which will probably be posted on my fanpage a little before our conversation, it's been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember it very well, and therefore, I'm sure I'll miss some of the points. Regarding your valid point about introducing new characters into a 100-minute film, the creators made a very good decision to use characters known from the series and present them in a different light. We've already gotten to know them, so they don't need expansion. Instead, we can enjoy their differences from the original and their interactions with the other characters. While I didn't like all the deviations, I'm not nitpicking. Bradley as a Jew or Maes Hughes as a model Nazi make up for any shortcomings. Especially the latter in contrast to his counterpart from the world of alchemy. Even though there was no reason to laugh, I couldn't contain my reaction whenever Hughes slandered the gypsies. In one world, he's a decent and helpful man, while in the other, he's a vile racist who insults others at every turn based on stereotypes and skin color. I liked the storylines of Izumi, her husband, and her son – the parents received little time, but we were given specific details about what was going on, while Wrath and Al were placed in one location, saving time and allowing viewers to watch them fight Gluttony together. But why did he appear there and look like that? I understand that he lost his temper over Lust's death, and I'm not surprised it affected him so much. As I wrote in one of my Brotherhood posts, stupidity and great strength are a very dangerous combination, which was very well demonstrated in "Conqueror of Shamballa." It's just a shame the creators didn't introduce him more effectively; I also had the strong impression that they added him there primarily to add more action to the film. If they'd used something else instead of this fight, viewers would probably complain that not much happened.
Why are you surprised by this reaction to the Jewish Bradley? For me, it was quite natural. Ed is an intelligent character, he doesn't get carried away by his emotions like some characters in other shounen movies, so he accepted that this Bradley was a completely different character. If I remember correctly, he was a little scared of him at first, but a moment later he realized he was a completely different person, and only shared certain personality traits and physical appearance with the old Bradley.
[Karol]
Regarding Gluttony. After all, at the end of FMA, Dante turned on his "beast mode," completely shutting down his thinking. That's why he stayed in the underground city and became a beast. As for Bradley, Ed has been living in Berlin for a while now. His neighbor is Glacier, the district attorney is Hughes, he works with Al, he shares a house with Rose, but it was only in front of Bradley that he reacted, "Where are you from?"
Now, what I don't like about this movie is the ending, specifically the last 10 minutes or so. Ed kicked Dietline Eckhart's ass, everything seemed to be fine, until suddenly Ed got the brilliant idea that he had to go back to our world and destroy the gate on the other side... But why? They probably showed Al being able to implant a fragment of his soul into the armor for a reason; that's how they could have done it. I know the ending is supposed to be bittersweet, with the brothers reunited, but not in their world, but we have that without it. The Al from our world dies (he would have died soon anyway, but whatever), Rose is abandoned by Ed, and we have a lot of bitterness.
[Me]
I understand, I agree with your explanation, but... I still can't change my mind. I buy what you're saying, but... I don't know, maybe it's just me, and if I watched it again, I'd change my mind. I just finished watching the TV series, and the fat Homunculus's presence in that scene really surprised me. Especially since, like with Envy, his design is slightly different from what was shown in the show. As for Bradley, for me, it was simply an instinctive reflex. He treated him as an enemy for so long that the image was embedded in his reptilian brain. He later came to his senses, as I said in the previous paragraph. As for the second part of your comment, it's one of those parts I don't remember well. From what I remember, I didn't like the ending because it all happened too quickly. For me, it lacked an extra 10 minutes to make everything feel better. I also didn't like the final fight, which was resolved too quickly. Regarding your complaints, I think they did it as a bare minimum plan – they didn't have time for a more detailed explanation, so they took the path of least resistance. Or maybe this is one of the few cases where they didn't think things through thoroughly and ended up the way they did.
[Karol]
It's high time for a summary. I know I'm in the minority, but I consider both series equally good. Thanks to their different approaches to telling the same story, both series are worth watching. People who repeat the mantra "FMA isn't worth it because it's filler" often haven't seen the first series and are mindlessly repeating slogans from others. FMA and Brotherhood are, and will be for a long time to come, among my top three animated series. Yes, it has flaws, but show me a title without flaws. Brotherhood does some things better, and vice versa. I've been watching it regularly for about 14 years, about once every 15 months, and I'll probably continue to do so for the next 14 years.
[Me]
I don't know if I'm being completely correct, but I sense your criticisms are directed at me, hehe :P. Actually, rightly so. Today's me would criticize my old self for the nonsense I spouted about the old FMA. I completely agree with you, I subscribe to what you wrote above. It's true that I personally value the newer series more, but that stems from the fact that I enjoy the fights and elements characteristic of battle shounen more than you do. It's not a huge difference, because as we've mentioned many times in this text, our private conversations, and public discussions, FMA and Brotherhood are, overall, on a more or less similar level. Of course, the latter is more visually appealing, but that stems from specific reasons, or rather, several of them, which can be summed up in one sentence: a larger budget and a desire to "apologize" to fans for the fact that the first anime wasn't a full adaptation of the manga. If an experienced director with good skills has clearly defined their vision and has no constraints (especially financial ones, or similarly significant ones), they will generally produce a better title than one without such a drive for success and constraints. Or, to put it another way, a more understandable example, both anime feature two girls. Both are more or less equally beautiful, with nice figures, but the latter wears more expensive or better cosmetics and more expensive clothes. You can ignore the visual aspects or ignore them, but you can't deny their effectiveness and usefulness in highlighting strong features. If both girls have roughly the same number of strengths, a similar number of minor flaws, and their beauty is clearly beyond our expectations, then it's just cosmetics.
I probably won't rewatch these anime as often as you do, but I'll definitely revisit them at least once. I remember both stories well enough that I probably won't do so until, say, five years from now, when I'm approaching 37 and don't feel the need to rewatch them myself. It's not because I didn't like them—I still consider Brotherhood a masterpiece in terms of plot and fights, and the 2003 anime purely for its storytelling, but it's too much of a time investment. I have too many anime, games, movies, books, and TV shows to catch up on that I want to watch before I have so many more responsibilities and so little time that I'll never catch up. I just don't want to have a moral hangover that I missed some important title that has been bothering me for many years.
[Ja]
FMA to jedno z najbardziej wychwalanych anime z czasów, gdy byłem nastolatkiem. Wtedy nie przepadałem za tym tytułem. Początek niespecjalnie mnie przekonał i nie chciałem go obejrzeć. Potem przez wiele lat mówiłem, że nie warto oglądać tego anime, gdy można obejrzeć Brotherhood. Mówiłem wtedy: "Po co marnować czas na fillery?", "Po co oglądać stare anime, jak można obejrzeć to nowsze, które póki co starzeje się bardzo dobrze pod każdym względem?" Dzisiaj wiem, że wtedy myliłem się i nie ma nic złego w posiadaniu dwóch adaptacji. Tym bardziej, jak są dobre i stawiają akcenty na coś innego. Dziś porozmawiam sobie z jednym z nich, tj. Karolem, o obu seriach.
[Karol]
Pamiętam, jak narzekałeś na starą serię. Gadanie, że to filler, że jest Brotherhood, że szkoda czasu na oglądanie czegoś, co nie jest dość wierną adaptacją mangi, zostały włożone do kieszeni. Można wreszcie porozmawiać o tym, co scenarzyści zrobili lepiej od Arakawy, a co zrobili gorzej no i oczywiście jak się sprawuje jako samodzielny tytuł. Na początku trochę prywaty, Fullmetal pierwszy raz obejrzałem gdy zaczął on swoją pierwszą lub drugą emisję na Hyperze (stary polski kanał telewizyjny, na którym leciały anime). Śmieszne jest to, że pomimo tego, że oglądałem go kilka razy w telewizji, nawet gdy Hyper miał awarię i nie było dźwięku to nie udało mi się nigdy obejrzeć samej końcówki.
[Ja]
Zacznę od końca. Gdy myślę o obu tytułach, to lubię je porównywać, wymieniając przy tym ich wady i zalety. Moim zdaniem Brotherhood ma mniej słabszych momentów, za to więcej zalet. Wynikają one w dużej mierze z większego budżetu oraz zapewne lepszych specjalistów w kwestiach technicznych, tj. muzyka, kreska, animacja. O ile scenariusze obu tytułów można określić jako równie wybitne i trudno jednoznacznie stwierdzić, który z nich został lepiej napisany, o tyle w kwestiach technicznych Brotherhood jest o wiele lepszy od swojego starszego brata. Fakt, anime z 2003 ma kilka walk, które wyszły lepiej niż w młodszej wersji, ale to jednostki wobec kilkunastu, jak nie kilkudziesięciu świetnych pojedynków. Nie ta liga. Co innego w przypadku scenariusza. Nie chcąc odebrać Tobie argumentów, powiem co mi się bardziej podobało. Zacznę od innego, moim zdaniem lepszego głównego przeciwnika od Homunculusa z lampy. Nie żeby pomysł Arakawy był zły, czy został źle przedstawiony, ale na pewno nie mogę powiedzieć, że jest przynajmniej równie dobry, co najlepsze wątki jej autorstwa. Co prawda plan Ojca Homcunulusów robi większe wrażenie, a Dante nie dostała zbyt wiele czasu antenowego, ale jest dla mnie o wiele bardziej przekonująca i ludzka. Wiem, taki był zamysł Hiromu, by uczynić go nieludzkim, ale mimo chęci i dobrej roboty, to słabo kontrastuje moim zdaniem z mistrzynią braci Elric. Zbyt wiele razy widziałem Villiana, który chce zdobyć władzę nad światem z podobnych powodów i nie jest to dla mnie już tak atrakcyjne.
[Karol]
O sprawach technicznych nie będę mówił, bo to niezbyt uczciwe, nie dotyczy to jednak muzyki. Nie uważam tej z Brotherhood za lepszą, owszem jest bardziej podniosła, ale taka nie pasowałaby do wersji 2003. W oryginalnej wersji mamy dużo mniejszą sprawę, więc i ścieżka dźwiękowa jest bardziej przyziemna. Nie dostaliśmy takiej ilości muzyki orkiestrowej, bo to by gryzło się z historią. Dużym plusem starszej wersji jest zmniejszenie skali. Nie mamy ogromnej intrygi, w której bierze udział cała władza państwa i dotyczy ona wszystkich mieszkańców, a historię gdzie pewna potężna postać lekko trąca niektórych alchemików, by ci nieświadomie spełnili jej zachciankę i stworzyli jej kamień filozoficzny. Przy okazji dzięki temu dostajemy pewną debatę o tym, czy prawo równoważnej wymiany jest prawdziwe, co w Brotherhoodzie nie jest aż tak bardzo rozwinięte, na sam koniec tylko Al wspomina o tym, że Ed stworzył hipotezę, że jednak trzeba więcej włożyć niż się dostanie. Pewne wątki w wersji z 2003 są w moich oczach przemyślane lepiej, to że Mustang zabił rodziców Winry, to jak powstały Homunculusy i dlaczego są nazywane imionami grzechów. Zabójstwo Rockbellów przez Scara wybrzmiewa dużo mniej, a pomysł, że jakiś potężny byt postanawia się wzmocnić przez pozbycie się tego co uważa za niedoskonałe w sobie, jest trochę clishe.
[Ja]
Zgadzam się, nie jest do końca uczciwe, dlatego nie porównuję obu serii pod tym względem, tak jakbym to zrobił np. z systemem mocy z OP i HxH. To było bardziej na zasadzie, czy obie serie dały mi przyjemność. Tak, animacja należy do tych aspektów, które szybciej się starzeją, ale mimo upływu lat, nadal może robić wrażenie. Czasem wystarczy dodać proste efekty, jak w DBZ albo OP - nawet jeśli te sceny mają prostą animację, można to ukryć. Dlatego też nie jestem za bardzo litościwy wobec starego anime. Może niektórzy się oburzą o to, ale dla mnie stare FMA wypada pod tym względem tak sobie. Poza kilkoma walkami ze Scarem, praktycznie nie czułem potęgi alchemii w serii z 2003. Co innego np. w przypadku DB, czy pierwszej serii Naruto (tak, wiem, z oczywistych powodów wszystkie te serie robią mocniejsze wrażenie). Pierwszy tytuł powstał dużo wcześniej, a drugi niewiele wcześniej. W pierwszej adaptacji FMA praktycznie nie czuję siły, mocy, czy emocji bohaterów. Trochę tak, jakby twórcy dobrych RTS-ów dostali za zadanie zrobienia gry TPP. W sensie stworzyli niezłą grę z dobrą fabułą, która została nieźle przedstawiona graczom, ale gameplay jest niedopracowany lub co najwyżej akceptowalny. Czyli gorszy w moim mniemaniu od Wiedźmin 3: Wild Hunt, mimo posiadaniu potencjału na bycie np. Assasin's Creed (jakkolwiek nie oceniać tej gry, ma podobno dużo lepszy gameplay). Mówiąc prościej - twórcy starego anime mogli to zrobić nieco lepiej. Jeśli chodzi o muzykę, to się w sumie zgadzam. Oba soundtracki prezentują wyrównany, podobnie wysoki poziom, więc to kwestia czysto subiektywna.
Nie zgadzam się jednak w przypadku fabuły. Może się mylę, bo Brotherhood widziałem dawno temu, ale wydaje mi się, że morał nowej serii różni się od tego, co napisałeś. Z tego, co ja pamiętam, Brotherood pokazuje, że różne drogi prowadzą do tego samego rozwiązania, zaś w starej serii jest kilka dróg z różnymi wnioskami. Dante mówi, że jeśli lepiej zna się jakiś temat i ma się dostęp do lepszych składników, to można dzięki temu nadrobić wiele lat ciężkiej pracy innej osoby, co jest bliższe naszej rzeczywistości. Brotherhood to odrobinę idealizuje i podkreśla zasadę równej wymiany, a morał z ostatnich odcinków serii z 2003 pokazuje, że można coś osiągnąć mniejszym nakładem sił i zasobów. Wolę wersję z 2003 roku, bo jest bliższa naszej rzeczywistości. Nie zgadzam się również w przypadku Roya Mustanga, ale to kwestia czysto subiektywna - obie sytuacje podobają mi się tak samo pod względem umotywowania tego i pomysłu, ale pomysł z 2003 roku mnie do siebie nie przekonał. Aczkolwiek doceniam świetne i prawdziwe przemówienie Ognistego Alchemika w kwestii wykonywania rozkazów swoich dowódców. Zgadzam się natomiast co Homunculusów oraz Dante, której motywacja była dla mnie o wiele atrakcyjniejsza od tego, co wymyśliła Arakawa.
[Karol]
Dante wprost mówi Edowi, że zasada równoważnej wymiany jest naiwnym myśleniem. To, że coś dajesz nie oznacza, że musisz coś dostać w zamian. Za przykład daje syna Izumi który oddał życie nie dostając nic w zamian. Kolejny przykład - przywrócenie ciała Ala, Ed poświęcił własne ciało, co teoretycznie powinno starczyć, ale tak się nie skończyło, Al musiał dodatkowo poświęcić wspomnienia 4 lat ich podróży. Dlaczego zabójstwo przez Mustanga jest mocniejsze? Całość uderza bardziej osobiście. Roy to koleś który jako wojskowy ma za zadanie bronić obywateli swojego kraju, a ten ich zabija. Później patrząc z perspektywy Winry ten sam człowiek który odebrał jej rodziców, odbiera osoby które uważa za swoich braci. Nawet był gotowy poświęcić śmierć przyjaciela dla kariery wojskowej. Scar dla Winry Rockbell jest bardziej jak jakaś idea, to ktoś mniej namacalny. Nie zmienia to faktu, że działa to wewnątrz historii, Winry tutaj wprowadza w życie to o czym wcześniej mówił mistrz Scara, tzn. by przerwać krąg zemsty. Porównałbym to do OP i arcu z Arlongiem oraz Enies Lobby. Dla mnie historia z ryboludem jest lepsza, bo pomimo dużo mniejszego rozmachu jest bardziej osobista, wrogiem nie jest wyimaginowany twór w postaci Rządu, którego przedstawicielem są CP9, a postać z krwi i kości - Arlong.
[Ja]
Jasne, zrozumiałem to, co miała na myśli Dante mówiąc Edowi o zasadzie równomiernej wymiany. Dlatego bardziej do mnie przemawia tłumaczenie z 2003, bo można to odnieść do znanej nam rzeczywistości. Część naszego życia faktycznie zależy od naszych wyborów, ale tak naprawdę determinuje go przede wszystkim przypadek (to, gdzie się urodzimy, to w jakim środowisku będziemy dorastali, to na kogo trafimy w naszym życiu). Nawet wtedy, gdy coś świadomie wybierzemy lub zrobimy. Wszystko temu podlega, bo przypadkiem możemy ciągle źle wybierać lub docelowo zrobimy wszystko dobrze, ale popełnimy jeden błąd pod koniec, który zniweczy nasze działania. Wolę to wytłumaczenie od zasady równoważnej wymiany znanego z Brotherhood - jeśli włożyłeś w coś swoją pracę, czas, zasoby, to dostaniesz równowartość tego, o co prosisz.
Co do Roya, to tak jak napisałem we wcześniejszym akapicie, jak najbardziej zgadzam się z Twoimi argumentami. Przez to cały wątek jest bliższy naszym bohaterom, zaś dla widzów bardziej namacalny. Uzupełnię Twoją opinię o Royu o to, co wcześniej napisałem - jego wątek pokazuje, że życie nie jest tak proste, jak to pokazano w Brotherhood. Ludzie, jak również moralność, są bardziej szarzy. Jest to bliższe zachowaniu ludzi - mało kto jest tak szczerze zły lub dobry. My oraz ludzie nas otaczający też nie raz wykonują rozkazy, których nie chcą robić, ale albo "taki był rozkaz" albo czasem należy zaaplikować lekarstwo, które może zabić, ale może też nas uratować przed śmiercią, która jest nieunikniona. Wątek Roya świetnie to uosabia na wymienionych przez Ciebie polach, tj. wykorzystanie śmierci przyjaciela do zdobycia lepszej pozycji w armii, w celu zmiany statusu quo albo konieczności spełnienia rozkazów, bo wojsko to nie jest szkolny wyjazd, gdzie uczeń tupnie nóżką i postawi się nauczycielce. W wojsku to wygląda tak, że jak nie spełnisz polecenia, to dostaniesz przykładną karę niesubordynację, a Twoje polecenie i tak ktoś w końcu wykona. Nie twierdzę, że to jest dobre, czy złe - tak po prostu jest z określonych powodów. Gdyby była większa samowolka w armii, to przyniosłoby to więcej negatywnych skutków aniżeli pozytywnych. Dodam też, że z czasem, m.in. dzięki znajomości z Tobą, lepiej zrozumiałem czemu niektóre wydarzenia lepiej działają w mniejszym formacie - są bardziej osobiste, a my widzowie bardziej skupiamy się na samym konflikcie, nie rozpraszając się dodatkami, które choć ubogacają opowieść, to nieco rozmywają jego główne przesłanie.
Skoro porozmawialiśmy sobie o tym, co FMA z 2003 robi lepiej, to co Twoim zdaniem obie serie robią tak samo dobrze? Znaczy, że musiałbyś się naprawdę długo zastanowić, co jest lepsze - rozwiązanie z młodszej, czy starszej serii. Tak jakbyś miał do wyboru dwa równie przydatne przedmioty w jakieś grze RPG. U mnie są to wydarzenia z Ishvalu. Początkowo uważałem, że wypadły biednie przy tym, co pokazano w Brotherhood, ale sprytne połączenie wątków chimer Greeda i eksperymentów Tuckera nad wzmocnieniem ludzi za pomocą zwierzęcego genomu, sprawiło że zmieniłem swoje zdanie. Najpierw jednak wyjaśnię swoją opinię, z którą się zapewne nie zgodzisz. Może jestem nieczuły, ale wydarzenia z pierwszej serii nie poruszyły mnie ani trochę pod żadnym względem. Ani mnie nie zasmuciły, ani nie sprawiły że zacząłem współczuć jego mieszkańcom, nie poczułem wagi siły państwa tak, jak w Brotherhood lub przynajmniej One Piece (chodzi o Buster Call - dla nieznających tego tytułu, chodzi o wykorzystanie floty pancerników, która anihilowała wszystkich ludzi na wyspie oraz jakiekolwiek ślady ich egzystencji). Nawet muzyka, którą z czasem doceniłem nie sprawiła, że uroniłem łzę przy tej scenie, nie wspominając już o udziale Roya Mustanga, które zostało w pełni wytłumaczone dopiero pod koniec anime. W Brotherhood poczułem, jak państwo-moloch wykorzystuje wszystkie dostępne środki, by zmiażdżyć jeden z narodów. Jego siłę i bezwzględność dało się odczuć na każdym polu - alchemii, broni konwencjonalnej, czy zwykłego szeregowego żołnierza, który patrzył w przerażone oczy ludzi przed odebraniem im życia. Skoro o tym mowa, było też więcej scen z ich trupami lub reakcjami na wojskowych, które wstrząsnęły mną. Wrażenie potęgowała podniosła muzyka, która może nie była idealnie dopasowana, ale lepiej spełniania swoje zadanie.
Zmieniłem swoje zdanie z powodu angażu służb specjalnych. Nie znam się na nich zbyt dobrze, moja wiedza jest fragmentaryczna, ale uwielbiam je obserwować w akcji. Nie ważne czy to tytuł fantasy, połowicznie realistyczny (jak Lupin III) lub aspirujący do tego miana. Jeśli scenarzysta wie, jak one działają, poprawnie je przedstawi, a reżyser poświęci im odpowiednio dużo czasu, to cieszę się jak 13-letni ja oglądając pierwszą walkę Goku vs Vegeta. Prowokacja wywołana przez wojsko Amestris wyglądała o wiele lepiej niż holocaust Ishvalu, jaki pokazano nam kilkadziesiąt odcinków wcześniej. Czułem większy dynamizm, gęstszy klimat, jak również sama akcja służb specjalnych zrobiła na mnie większe wrażenie z powodu większej skali. Nie chcę ich porównywać, bo lubią je tak samo, a liczba zalet się mniej więcej równoważy. No i obie akcje pokazują, aczkolwiek w pewnym uproszczeniu, jak mniej więcej mogłaby wyglądać prowokacja w Gettcie Warszawskim podczas Niemieckiej okupacji (gdyby napięcie było jeszcze większe, bo mordowanie dzieci Polskiego lub Żydowskiego pochodzenia nie robiło dostatecznego wrażenia na mieszkańcach getta) lub prowokacja Gliwicka z 1939 roku. Brotherhood, choć jako całokształt lepiej się prezentuje, to ma pewne luki, które są idealnie uzupełniane przez scenarzystów starego anime, co dobrze widać na tym przykładzie - mamy świetnie pokazane wojsko, ale autorka zapomniało o angażu sił specjalnych, które są ważne w wielu konfliktach między państwami.
[Karol]
Również traktuję akcję w Ishvalu jako coś na podobnym poziomie, chociaż dokładniej bym powiedział, że ogólnie akcje wojska z mniejszościami. Nie ważne czy mówimy o czerwonookich, czy o Lior, w obydwu seriach pokazano w dość mocny sposób anihilację wykonaną za pomocą rąk wojskowych. W starszej wersji większy nacisk położono na lud Rose, za to w Brotherhood na Scara, przez co 2003 ma lepszy epizod w Lior, a 2009 w Ishvalu. Co nie znaczy, że różnice są diametralne, ale pacyfikacja Lior dużo zyskuje na pokazaniu, jak po części właściwie wyglądała i jakie były jej skutki. W Brotherhood mamy jeden odcinek o tym jak właściwie zamieszki się zaczęły, a później odbudowę miasta. Z drugiej strony masakra Ishvalu jest bardziej rozwinięta w wersji z 2009, wspomnienia Hawkeye (które są bardziej rozwinięte w mandze), Armstrong dla którego ucieczka z frontu wciąż jest czymś żywym, co zresztą pokazuje po części przy "śmierci" Marii Ross. W postaci Hughesa dostajemy wojskowego który dzięki rodzinie i dla dobra rodziny chce zapomnieć o dramacie wojny. Wersja oryginalna dużo mniej eksponowała ten wątek. Tak, tak samo jak w wersji z 2009 był to punkt startowy dla Mustanga, w obydwu wersjach to moment w którym postanawia, że chce przejąć władzę w wojsku by nie doprowadzać do takich rzeczy. Tak samo z doktorem Marcoh, ale nie licząc uchodźców i misji Scara to praktycznie wszystko.
[Ja]
Dobrze, że zwróciłeś uwagę na Lior, które w pewnym sensie uzupełnia braki wersji z 2003, jeśli chodzi o Ishval. Zupełnie zapomniałem o tym wątku, który był rozgrywany przez całą serię - począwszy od działań Homunculusów, by ponownie podburzyć tłum przeciwko armii, skończywszy na partyzantce, która doprowadziła do gwałtu na Rose (nie powiedziano o nim wprost, ale kilkukrotnie go zasugerowano). Skojarzyło mi się to z Wiedźminem, gdy Sapkowski mówił jak dochodziło do incydentów na granicy krajów północnych i Nilfgaardu oraz naszym światem, gdzie dochodzi do napięć między różnymi państwami (np. Indie i Pakistan), które w przypadku zauważalnego zaburzenia równowagi, mogą się przerodzić w otwarty konflikt lub przejęcie danego terytorium. Jeśli chodzi o postacie, to pomijając wątek Roya Mustanga, który jest równie ciekawy w obu seriach, to o wiele bardziej przemawia do mnie wizja Hiromu Arakawy. Zwłaszcza w przypadku dr Marcoh, który został słabiej wykorzystany w starej serii. Może się mylę, ale wydaje mi się, że scenarzyści anime z 2003 nie mieli pomysłu na rozwinięcie jego roli w całej opowieści. Podobnie zresztą widzę finał Scara, czy Greeda - zgadzasz się ze mną? Jeśli chodzi o pozostałych bohaterów, to ich wątki mocniej wybrzmiewają, jak również łatwiej mi się do nich odnieść, nie tylko z personalnej perspektywy, ale też patrząc z perspektywy ogólnie ludzkości, czy konfliktów między nami.
[Karol]
Jak dla mnie to nie tyle, co nie mieli pomysłu, co po prostu postanowili nie ciągnąć dalej ich wątków, odkąd nie ma naszych kolegów i koleżanek z Cesarstwa. W mandze i Broherhood, Greed jest rozwijany jako Greelin, Marcoh wraca dopiero po jego odbiciu przez Scara, historia Ishvarczyka jest mocno powiązana z Mei i danchemią. Zamiast tego za to postawili na trochę więcej czasu dla Tuckera, dali pożyć dłużej Hughesowi, Lust dostała więcej backgroundu, rozwinięto trochę przygodę w Dublith.To co dano jednym postaciom, zabrano tym co pojawiają się po akcji z Greedem. Takie uroki wymyślania własnej historii.
Kolejną rzeczą którą uważam na równi jest ogólny poziom historii. Dzięki temu, że obydwie historie uderzają w inne tony, mamy opowiedzianą podobną historię, przedstawiającą podobne problemy, ale widziane z innych stron. Wersja z 2003 stawia na mroczniejsze klimaty, ta z 2009 chce dawać więcej nadziei i na swój sposób się w tym dopełniają. To co było słabsze w Brotherhood już zostało powiedziane (w pewnym stopniu, bo nie chcę się rozbijać tutaj o każdy odcinek), ale jest to rekompensowane rzeczami, które wypadają lepiej, a trochę tego jest. Ale o tym za chwilę. Uprzedzę także pewne stwierdzenie, nie uważam, że połączenie tej dwójki sprawiłoby, że nagle powstałby nad-FMA, lepszy od wszystkiego innego, prawdopodobnie nawet by nieco stracił na poziomie.
[Ja]
O ile zgadzam się w przypadku Greeda i częściowo w przypadku dr Marcoh, o tyle nie kupuję Twoich argumentów co do Scara. Jestem zawiedziony pomysłem nad zakończeniem wątku Ishvalczyka. To nie była słaba, głupia lub niepotrzebna postać, można jej było dać ważniejszą rolę pod koniec jej życia lub jeszcze bardziej rozwinąć. A nawet gdyby się uparli, że ma umrzeć tu i teraz, to mogliby wymyślić coś lepszego. Scar nie miał daleko do Eda, a zbroja zmieniała się w bombę tak powoli, że raczej spokojnie dałby radę go do niego dostarczyć. Gdy Scar poświęcał się dla Ala, to miałem wrażenie jak w przypadku walki Kakuzu vs Naruto, gdy Kishimoto na kilka chwil zabrał mózg członkowi Akatsuki, by Naruto mógł się go pozbyć. W przypadku Marcoh jestem rozdarty, bo o ile faktycznie można uznać, że jego rola skończyła się na tamtym etapie i twórcy spełnili wszystkie warunki do zabicia go (nie miał jak uciec, nie był też silny jak Scar, by sobie stworzyć drogę do ucieczki), o tyle moim zdaniem jego wątek został nagle ucięty. Tak, jakby ktoś wybrał moment i zbyt idealnie przerwał jego dalszą historię.
Co do drugiego akapitu, zgadzam się z każdym zdaniem, zastanawia mnie tylko to ostatnie. Jak Ty wyobrażasz sobie takie połączenie obu serii? Domyślam się, że chodziło Ci o połączenie najlepszych cech obu anime? Zgadzam się, że ten pomysł jest bez sensu. Raz że historia byłaby przeładowana wątkami, dwa że niektóre trzeba byłoby wyrzucić, by nie szkodziły ważniejszym wydarzeniom. Jest to moim zdaniem bez sensu, zwłaszcza że oba anime są bardzo spójne (FMA mniej, ale to mało istotne elementy, które można byłoby łatwo naprawić), prezentują wysoki poziom, a ich braki są niewielkie. W przypadku starego są to walki, w przypadku nowego zbyt pozytywne przesłanie, które jest imo za bardzo wyidealizowane. Oba anime stoją na swoich nogach i jakiekolwiek grzebanie przy nich, jedynie by je popsuło moim zdaniem.