Puella Magi Madoka Magica

[Pontianak]

Please don't. Every time you do so, God kills a catgirl. Have mercy on them already.

It's an excellent example highlighting why it's impossible to judge things by comparison and still be objective.

(it's another story that you see the faults where I don't and vice versa, but that's a normal thing about discussions ).

I think that's more you're blindsighting yourself to them, or still like Madoka despite the fact that it's bad. Like how I love AKB48 even though I know it's... ...kind of awful. The worst-of-the-worst in terms of shitty Asian pop girl groups.

But I do consider Madoka good. As to calling it objectively good or bad... Like I said, let's leave this to a Knowledge-wielding critic like you.

Then you're wrong. idk, bro, why would you want to be in denial about something?

Yeah, I looked up the same link before posting that. That's quite true, and Sayaka herself does dive into it for a moment before ... (*sob*). But the theme and the actual problem the characters deal with are not the same.

It's dealing with aspects of human existence and questioning them, hope and despair included, therefore it's existentialism. Perhaps not in the most overt form, but it's still what's going on.

AFAIR from our last character discussion, you couldn't take Sayaka's situation seriously because you couldn't find her "teenage identity crisis + unrequitted crush" sufficient for her behaviour.

It was just like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum because they can't get what they want. I know Sayaka had already been established as a selfish brat, but it was stretching it to stupid extremes, so I couldn't sympathize with her ridiculous shitfit at all.

But there's no philosophy Sayaka is bothered with in eps 5-8. It's not the problem of "who am I?", it's the problem of "I've taken the path of risking my life on a daily basis to make Kyousuke happy, but now my best friend is about to take him, and I've just learnt that I'm an animated corpse now."

Yes. That is existentialism.

Well, maybe there IS some philosophical issue in that, namely her reason for living

...Yeah. Existentialism.

She may die any day, she's not even as good at what she does as some other magical girls are, and the very meaning of being a magical girl doesn't seem to be about saving the world like she believed, plus the world sometimes looks like not quite a worthy place to save... and that's what she's ruined her future for.

...............Yeah? Existentialism?????????

Behind her cries like "I can't hug Kyousuke with this body", there may well be the more dismaying thought: "I can't EVER hug ANYONE with this body. My life as a human is pretty much done for".

..................................................existentialism??????? anyone?????

Watching something else is always the best default option. It's just that watching the genre being refreshed is infinitely more interesting.

It wasn't really being refreshed as much as "oooh bad things are happening to children, super spooky wooky".

We can also discuss the movie here. So much the more that the Internet's already digging it. Even tickets have been designed in advance...

WOW, thunder thighs.

 

[george1234]

@ Nick: LOL for the ticket

 

[Nick Hunter]

@Ponti: OK, we'll deem it so that existentialism is Urobuchi's main weapon. Maybe I misinterpreted your claim. I thought you were saying the characters act based on pure philosophical categories (which isn't a likely thing in a story about middle school girls).

It was just like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum because they can't get what they want. I know Sayaka had already been established as a selfish brat, but it was stretching it to stupid extremes, so I couldn't sympathize with her ridiculous shitfit at all.

Well, you are definitely not alone. Although I didn't see in Sayaka's reaction nothing completely unexpectable from a 14-year-old girl. As depressing (to Sayaka fans)/annoying (to Sayaka haters) as this may have been depicted, I find it significantly more credible than a ton of other anime teenagers who get their parents killed/village destroyed/[insert tragedy here], yell an obligatory NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, then grab a sword/gun/mecha/whatever for revenge. PMMM puts its characters in the conditions where it takes both time, background and a chain of events to evoke such a character development... or the opposite one, in Sayaka's case.

Then you're wrong. idk, bro, why would you want to be in denial about something?

Because the exact standard figures I've been wondering about are not a quirk of mine - they should exist to measure up YOUR OWN interpretation to. And be a guarantee of the fact that the "logical evidence" another person gives you ain't just his/her own interpretation. To illustrate:
A: the plot is objectively bad, because I watched the show and I see that the events don't connect, the characters are one-traited, and I fail to understand their motives or sympathize with them.
B: the plot is objectively good, because I watched the show and I can see the logic the events are connected by (without spending several years in WMG abyss like some poor Evangelion fans after the movie), I see enough visible/easily deductable traits in the character profiles, I find myself able to sympathize with the characters and analyze their actions according to their personality and situation combined.

See? Going by your beliefs, speaker A should be right, but then speaker B should see the doctor. Because instead of denial, we're talking INTERPRETATION here. That's why I created a separate topic and suggested everyone to come up with the numbers. Statistics are usually least prone to different interpretations once the exact numbers are codified.
And all criteria you suggest stumble upon the question of "why a certain character/plotline/trope looks logical and well-used to some and nonsensical to others". Either one of the sides is "in denial", and something third (figure-based) should be applied to reveal which one, or both are wrong, and the truth is out there. Or maybe they're both right in their own interpretation? In this case your interpretation of "Madoka being objectively bad" also appears completely valid. Huh, I guess argument over.

And if it soothes you a bit, I'll clarify once again: I DON'T consider Madoka perfect. There are things that some shows (including those in my toplist, but still lower) do better. But I consider Madoka good through its merits, not through denial of its faults. Since you don't see any merits in Madoka (or, as you'll immediately correct me, "as there are objectively no merits in Madoka" ), it's logical for you to consider it bad.

If you disagree with me further, then let you enjoy your perfectly objective and true point of view, and please have mercy on the clueless ever-in-denial noob I am. Maybe someday my eyes will be opened towards the Truth, and I'll become your apprentice.

 

[murrue02]

Here we go again

 

[Nick Hunter]

A nice cosplay from Russia (namely Nizhny Novgorod):

And Chibi Sayaka. I'm not usually into chibi figurines, but this one is...

Chibi Kyouko is also announced.

Oh, and there's already a Mami emoticon in the internet:

ξ(✿ ＞◡❛)ξ▄︻▇▇〓〓

 

[george1234]

Oh that cosplay is really good, but Sayaka's a bit too tall

 

[KP-X]

Personally, I found Sayaka's Nendoroid the most boring one. The best one so far is Mami's. I'm not the biggest Madoka fan in the world but I will definitely buy Mami's one day just because of its cuteness.

 

[Pontianak]

Maybe I misinterpreted your claim.

I probably didn't articulate myself correctly.

I find it significantly more credible

Credibility doesn't automatically equate to sympathy.

And be a guarantee of the fact that the "logical evidence" another person gives you ain't just his/her own interpretation.

Everything can be analysed objectively, if you're so inclined.

See? Going by your beliefs, speaker A should be right, but then speaker B should see the doctor.

Empirical evidence will always hold precedence over personal thought when concerned with objectivity.

A character being portrayed in a sympathetic light will indeed provoke sympathy, but that doesn't mean that the character's situation is sympathetic when viewed without bias, and it also doesn't mean the character is any better for it.

You can feel sympathy for a psychopathic serial rapist because he is biologically unable to comprehend empathy, but that doesn't make the serial rapist himself a good person, nor does it make the serial rapist's situation sympathetic.

Statistics are usually least prone to different interpretations once the exact numbers are codified.

Any view point that can be backed up with logical, factual evidence can be considered to be potentially correct, even if they seem to contradict.

You've supplied absolutely no clear facts for your claims of Madoka's high quality aside from saying that mine are automatically invalid simply because "NO SUBJECTIVE". That isn't an argument nor a refute to anything I've said and supported with evidence.

You can't falsify interpretation, therefore it's not a valid method of objective analysis.

And all criteria you suggest stumble upon the question of "why a certain character/plotline/trope looks logical and well-used to some and nonsensical to others".

A story can follow a simple storyline logically, but that doesn't account for quality, either. Jack and Jill has a storyline that has excellent continuation without any plot holes, but it doesn't make it an excellent story.

Since you don't see any merits in Madoka (or, as you'll immediately correct me, "as there are objectively no merits in Madoka" ), it's logical for you to consider it bad.

...

Which, really, is an aspect of Madoka I liked. The non-human weirdness of the animation and the designs of the Witches and the weird world they went into and the odd quirks that makes SHAFT's animation SHAFT-like.

idk bro

If you disagree with me further, then let you enjoy your perfectly objective and true point of view, and please have mercy on the clueless ever-in-denial noob I am.

I wouldn't say you're clueless, because you're fully aware of the truth. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is up to you.

Maybe someday my eyes will be opened towards the Truth, and I'll become your apprentice.

Perhaps.

 

[Nick Hunter]

Which, really, is an aspect of Madoka I liked. The non-human weirdness of the animation and the designs of the Witches and the weird world they went into and the odd quirks that makes SHAFT's animation SHAFT-like.

Point taken, so let's assume you consider this a good point (and not some guilty pleasure like Seikon no Quaser). And I support you in that with my opinion (I'm a Shaft fan, after all).
But did you know there are people who think the whole show was RUINED by those scenes? I think both of us would have trouble convincing them otherwise. You can come up with some arguments, like "these scenes compliment the otherworldly feel of witch barriers, transfer the chaos of witches' despair and emphasize the situation" etc. And they'll merely say, "What are you talking about, I watched the show, and these scenes did neither of that - they're just the result of animators going nuts from work overload, combined with poor animation". All of this despite the said info being the perfectly logical and obvious evidence in your opinion.

Basing the evidence on the things we find the show to be lacking or abundant in will always seem perfectly obvious. It's when other people see the situation otherwise that something else to verify your/their interpretation is needed. It's less problematic IRL - there's even a fable about a man who bought a goat, but was tricked by a bunch of tricksters into abandoning it, since they all told him it was obviously a dog. The fable mocks this man, naturally, because there is enough evidence [other than based on interpretation] to verify the truth by himself. Touching the animal's horns, hearing the noises it makes (and hearing they're really different from barking) would suffice. Or if you see a ghost, it's usually sufficient to touch it to see it's not real. But how do you "touch" the fiction interpreted? How to experimentally prove that this work lacks this and that to people who found the exact this and that present and obvious? Unless such means are employed, we can only go by our own tastes, comparison and interpretation - something apparently NOT objective, but commonly used due to the inability to verify your judgement of fiction by other means. Being logical doesn't really help where all different sorts of logic are used and not everyone feels obliged to use yours somehow.

And when it comes to interpretations, they either clash or coincide. E.g., our interpretations of the main cast/plot/etc. clash and our interpretations of animation quirks (again, assuming you consider them good, not just like them "even though they're objectively poor") and the shallowness of Hitomi and Kyousuke's characters coincide (alas, being a conditionally supporting role in a one-cour show doesn't grant you good prospects in portrayal and screentime and some of my complaints concerning the show are about how this fact influenced the part these characters played in the plot). That's the story of our lives.

So you've been repeating that you have no problem with people liking Madoka, but trust me, I don't have problems with you or other people disliking it. Which isn't meant to prevent me from voicing my interpretation of the show and counterpose it to the rest, since discussions are usually all about that (and it's NOT even necessarily an invitation to a holywar ). But with all my love for this show and all the great things I see about it, I'm forced to stay aware this is MY interpretation of things which some people share and other people don't. So I can't but envy your boldness and confidence when you claim that your view of the show is actually the one beyond subjective interpretations and perfectly verifyable against all of them. Seriously, this is something to envy.

Maybe I really should take apprenticeship?

Personally, I found Sayaka's Nendoroid the most boring one. The best one so far is Mami's. I'm not the biggest Madoka fan in the world but I will definitely buy Mami's one day just because of its cuteness.

Mami's appearance is uber-cute by default, so it's only natural that a chibi form would take it up to eleven.

And how about non-chibi?

Btw, I'd really like to see more art/figurines/whatever where Mami has her hair down.

 

[KP-X]

Yeah, I saw this figure recently. Although it is indeed nice, I wanted GSC to create original poses, instead of just copying the ones from the promotional artworks.

 

[Pontianak]

(and not some guilty pleasure like Seikon no Quaser)

Only the anime. The manga is shockingly good.

But did you know there are people who think the whole show was RUINED by those scenes?

I didn't say that they complimented the show, I just said that they were nice animations. Well animated with lots of artistic creativity and uniqueness and with excellent framerates.

I think both of us would have trouble convincing them otherwise.

It doesn't matter. They can refuse to be convinced as much as they want, and it doesn't stop them being any more wrong.

You can come up with some arguments, like "these scenes compliment the otherworldly feel of witch barriers, transfer the chaos of witches' despair and emphasize the situation" etc.

That's opinion, not fact. Besides, you don't need wacko animation to emphasize ethereal environments, you can do that just as well with standard art styles.

And they'll merely say, "What are you talking about, I watched the show, and these scenes did neither of that - they're just the result of animators going nuts from work overload, combined with poor animation".

Poor animation can be judged objectively, though; through framerates. If there are hardly any jumps in movement between frames, then it's good animation.

All of this despite the said info being the perfectly logical and obvious evidence in your opinion.

I explained why your analogy doesn't work above.

Basing the evidence on the things we find the show to be lacking or abundant in will always seem perfectly obvious.

Like I said, as long as you can back up your statements with observable evidence from the original media and cite sources to highlight your rationality without once falling prey to words such as "liked" or "loved", then it's an objective analysis.

It's when other people see the situation otherwise that something else to verify your/their interpretation is needed.

I have no idea why people wouldn't be able to articulate themselves on how they reached their conclusions, if they had truly come to an objective final statement.

Touching the animal's horns, hearing the noises it makes (and hearing they're really different from barking) would suffice.

And yet there are people who would argue that this is not proof enough; philosophers and psychologists alike.

Or if you see a ghost, it's usually sufficient to touch it to see it's not real.

Again, this is a faulty comparison. People with certain cognitive processes will be physically able to "touch" a hallucination, and hallucinations would be completely real to them. The CNS and the brain controls all senses that there are, and it's perfectly possible to be unable to touch something that you can see, or not see something but be able to touch it.

You shouldn't make examples if you don't understand them well enough to be able to explain correctly how they apply.

But how do you "touch" the fiction interpreted?

How do you touch the gamma and microwave rays to know how that they work? How do you experience the vacuum in space to know that you can't breathe in it? How do you experience finding water vapour on the sun's surface if you can't get close enough to observe it?

How to experimentally prove that this work lacks this and that to people who found the exact this and that present and obvious?

This statement is too vague to be an argument.

Being logical doesn't really help where all different sorts of logic are used and not everyone feels obliged to use yours somehow.

Being logical always works in applying objectivity.

E.g., our interpretations of the main cast/plot/etc. clash

They aren't interpretations. They are facts. You have offered absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, whereas I've supplied plenty to support what I am saying.

So you've been repeating that you have no problem with people liking Madoka, but trust me, I don't have problems with you or other people disliking it.

I never said that you did; I said that Madoka fans in general do.

So I can't but envy your boldness and confidence when you claim that your view of the show is actually the one beyond subjective interpretations and perfectly verifyable against all of them.

I've provided evidence for it. This automatically makes it infinitely more credible than your "but interpretations lol", which you attempt to enforce on my argument in an attempt to dismiss it with the power of fallacies.

It's shamefully lazy that you choose to argue that my evidence is invalid rather than supply any of your own.

Maybe I really should take apprenticeship?

ALSO I like figures like that, the ones that aren't adjustable. I feel like they should be for displaying purposes only, and not playing action men with them or whatever it is you do with jointed figures.

 

[Nick Hunter]

They can refuse to be convinced as much as they want, and it doesn't stop them being any more wrong.

The very phrase all holywars in the Internet revolve around.

That's opinion, not fact.

My point exactly.

Poor animation can be judged objectively, though; through framerates. If there are hardly any jumps in movement between frames, then it's good animation.

Finally an example we needed! AFAIK, there should be numerical standards, and anything animated below them will be objectively bad from the point of technology/animator input/both regardless of how people treat it. and while there are certain animation techniques, they fall under being poor from the point of technology because there is usually only so much framerate this technique can provide. And framerate is practically countable. Plus I'm not sure if anyone's able to mistake low framerate for visual slowdown as a director's method.

So this is a really good example.

How do you touch the gamma and microwave rays to know how that they work? How do you experience the vacuum in space to know that you can't breathe in it? How do you experience finding water vapour on the sun's surface if you can't get close enough to observe it?

Thanks to other methods and their collected data in your disposal.

Again, this is a faulty comparison. People with certain cognitive processes will be physically able to "touch" a hallucination, and hallucinations would be completely real to them. The CNS and the brain controls all senses that there are, and it's perfectly possible to be unable to touch something that you can see, or not see something but be able to touch it.

Hmm, that's true. Point taken.

This statement is too vague to be an argument.

To be less vague: how do you experimentally prove that the plot is unexplainable, if other people can explain it?
And vice versa, how do THEY experimentaly prove that the explanation they found is correct?
Without additional verifying and methods provided for that, it's a stalemate.

You have offered absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, whereas I've supplied plenty to support what I am saying.

I've given a good number of them. You don't consider my arguments valid because you watched PMMM and clearly saw otherwise. I don't consider your arguments valid, because I watched PMMM and saw otherwise. Happy stalemate again.

ALSO I like figures like that, the ones that aren't adjustable. I feel like they should be for displaying purposes only, and not playing action men with them or whatever it is you do with jointed figures.

Seconded. Not to mention people who use these adjustable figurines to make and shoot different scenes, from amusing to WTF to plain obscene.

 

[Pontianak]

The very phrase all holywars in the Internet revolve around.

They can be holy wars all they want, it's not going to make them any more right.

My point exactly.

You suggested something completely different than I did. You suggested interpretations and complimentary usage that can't be measured or observed objectively, whereas I observed quality of animation in regards to creativity and framerates.

Your ridiculous circular logic fallacy has no correlation and proves nothing but your inability to form a continuous example.

So this is a really good example.

Everything can be observed objectively, if you're willing to do so.

Thanks to other methods and their collected data in your disposal.

But by your arguments, we cannot "touch" them. We cannot physically understand or comprehend them using our biological capabilites. We cannot come into contact with them. Therefore, they're impossible to be proven.

To be less vague: how do you experimentally prove that the plot is unexplainable, if other people can explain it?

It isn't necessary to prove things experimentally for them to be objective.

And vice versa, how do THEY experimentaly prove that the explanation they found is correct?

As I said, if they can support their claims with evidence and logical arguments free from ~*subjectivity*~ and bias, then it's a viable answer that can be considered correct.

Without additional verifying and methods provided for that, it's a stalemate.

You're assuming there's only one true answer. There isn't. Any number of answers could potentially be correct if they're able to be reinforced with factual, unbiased, critical evidence.

I've given a good number of them.

You've given a good number of fanon interpretations and observations that have very little to do with the original media itself. You even considered ad populum to be a viable argument for the quality of Madoka.

You have offered nothing but "no subjective" and "no interpretations". Even when I simplified my argument and went to extra lengths to show more detailed evidence for the lack of depth in Madoka's main cast by highlighting all three of their personality traits perfectly, all you replied with was "no subjective".

You don't consider my arguments valid because you watched PMMM and clearly saw otherwise.

I don't consider them valid because you draw absolutely no reference to the original media whatsoever.

You instead rely on grandiose paragraphs that extend your original intended point of "subjective!!!" in order to make it seem more valid than it actually is, without evidence or factual basis in anything you say.

I don't consider your arguments valid, because I watched PMMM and saw otherwise. Happy stalemate again.

You're wrong.

There's no stalemate in that.

 

[CruelAngel]

^ This is still going on? Seriously? It's probably a good thing I don't have a ridiculous amount of a free time anymore or I might have been tempted to join in and forget that it was neither fun nor productive the last time. For me at least, maybe you two are having a wild time, I don't know.

Pondering on whether I should get a Figma Homura or Nendoroid Homura. I can only afford one at this point. Any opinions? And has there been any update on when Figma Kyouko will be released?

I have some badly shot photographs of Madoka cosplay and merchandise from Anime Festival Asia. I started this post to spam you all with those but then I suddenly realised I was too exhausted. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[KP-X]

^It seems Kyouko's Figma will be released in March.

 

[Pontianak]

For me at least, maybe you two are having a wild time, I don't know.

I kind of am having a lot of fun. I hone my arguing skills in my philosophy class and online, so I'm going to be pretty good at arguing by the end of this.

 

[wintersviolet]

Re:

I really like the color gradient in Sayaka's hair. And despite my issues with the show, Kyouko is still my favorite. I'll consider buying her chibi when it comes out.

@Pontianak and Nick Hunter:

If you insist on continuing your debate: please, please take your posts to PM. I'm not the only one who's tired of scrolling through tl;dr.

 

[Pontianak]

^ Ahah, sure. Sorry!

 

[Nick Hunter]

A cute reunion-themed pic.

is it me, or Madoka has... er, more to her figure than I remember from ep 12?

You suggested something completely different than I did. You suggested interpretations and complimentary usage that can't be measured or observed objectively, whereas I observed quality of animation in regards to creativity and framerates.

You merged two replies into one. In case you didn't notice, I supported your framerate example without question. The line you quoted referred to you commenting on the example of mine about difference in opinions and facts. It's funny that you TL;DR'ed it, but still think we were talking about different things there.

Everything can be observed objectively, if you're willing to do so.

... and are able to make sure you're doing just that. Or, as in your case, if you don't bother yourself with such issues at all. Like I said, this confidence is something to envy, but then why do you get surprised at such a lot of subjective people around that have problems with you opening their eyes on the truth they deny about something? That's the tough path of a true critic.

But by your arguments, we cannot "touch" them. We cannot physically understand or comprehend them using our biological capabilites. We cannot come into contact with them. Therefore, they're impossible to be proven.

Seeing as you locked yourself on the "touch", it seems my examples were poor indeed. Serves me right for trying to be allegorical where it doesn't work. But the point I tried to get through is that to establish something as an undebated truth, one needs sources of proof other than his/her own judgement, as perfectly unbiased as it may be in nature.

Although I wonder if I should really clarify it, since you firmly believe that

It isn't necessary to prove things experimentally for them to be objective.

and

if they can support their claims with evidence and logical arguments free from ~*subjectivity*~ and bias, then it's a viable answer that can be considered correct.

You know, I'm actually wondering if we might have misunderstood each other in the beginning. Are you actually speaking about objectivity=impartiality? Unless you easily switch between this definition and "objectivity=200% correct judgement" (which I hope you don't), then the argument might be really pointless, since I have problems with the latter and acknowledge the former. Forming a view not based on personal attitude to the show is indeed a marvelous trait for critical judgement.

I only beg to differ if you happen to believe that unbiased judgement alone and a single person's logic that gives birth to logically sounding but unverifiable conclusions, can produce acknowledged facts. Because in that case I've got bad news...

You're assuming there's only one true answer. There isn't. Any number of answers could potentially be correct if they're able to be reinforced with factual, unbiased, critical evidence.

This is a point for consideration. Though...
though sometimes I have an odd feeling that it's mostly the definition of factual evidence we're doing shaman dances around.

You've given a good number of fanon interpretations and observations that have very little to do with the original media itself.

You're literally piling me up with things to wonder about. Now I'm wondering if we watched the same "original media".
I give fanon interpretations based on the things I watched and perceived. And I'm pretty aware that the latter factor isn't guaranteed to be the true POV or even coincide with other people's POVs, for that matter. But at least I always try to interpret things in the offered context. You sometimes seek comparison outside it. Whenever we discuss Sayaka, I list the factors and situations behind her actions, and you respond with "no real teenager in their sane mind would have acted as stupidly and exaggeratedly as she did". Leaving me to righteously wonder when you had met a teenage girl dealing with the combination of factors like those the show provided. Sulking or throwing tantrums because of being dumped and having no confidence in oneself is somewhat different from learning that you've had your soul ripped out.

And as for character traits you listed, you merely had me asking how come I saw more. The only diagnosis I got was "IN DENIAL" which is stamped all over this argument as often as the "no subjective" claim you're so annoyed at. I actually had to recheck my perception and include the personal interpretation factor to balance out and safebelt my arguments. And even with that in play, the issue hangs vague. Is it indeed you seeing the exact number of traits and me seeing things? Is it both of us being wrong since I bet there is an wide number of other calculation results provided by the audience? Or is it me counting separate traits and you counting SETS of them?

There can be plenty of features to find in a personality. It might be interesting to run through them all and then compare notes.

One other things one can try to describe a character by is a number of tropes used. This link, while as prone to interpretations clash as any public-run wikia is, gives some interesting info, including the visible difference in found tropes number between the more and less-defined characters in the show. And they try to base the entries on the original media, too.

the site is an amusing reading I recommend regardless, btw, since there's always a lot of interesting info, both official and observation-based. There's a page for Mononoke, too.

And before you start complaining - I've already said that this site is a wikia, so it may be qualified as food for thought much rather than "factual evidence".

It's probably a good thing I don't have a ridiculous amount of a free time anymore or I might have been tempted to join in and forget that it was neither fun nor productive the last time. For me at least, maybe you two are having a wild time, I don't know.

Trying to convince Ponti is a truly unproductive effort. But this may help me figure out whether I may be in the wrong here, actually. Maybe I should really learn from her... maybe not....

Pondering on whether I should get a Figma Homura or Nendoroid Homura. I can only afford one at this point. Any opinions?

I'd get a figma, personally.

I have some badly shot photographs of Madoka cosplay and merchandise from Anime Festival Asia. I started this post to spam you all with those but then I suddenly realised I was too exhausted. Maybe tomorrow.

Looking forward to those.

I kind of am having a lot of fun. I hone my arguing skills in my philosophy class and online, so I'm going to be pretty good at arguing by the end of this.

Glad to be of some help to you.

If you insist on continuing your debate: please, please take your posts to PM. I'm not the only one who's tired of scrolling through tl;dr.

May be a good idea after all. I haven't followed it till now, thinking the topic is closed, and then it's always leaping right back.
Henceforward, I'll make sure to keep the debates to PMMM and leave the "objectivity/subjectivity" discussion off the public eye. This one wil be the last here from me.

 

[george1234]

A cute reunion-themed pic.

is it me, or Madoka has... er, more to her figure than I remember from ep 12?

Yes, whoever made that pic made them as big as Mami's