Kill la Kill and Sailor Moon Liveblog Chat Thingy

How to participate in the liveblog chat:

Option 1: Whenever you watch the episode, comment on this post as you watch with whatever responses you feel like posting!

Option 2: Go to http://webchat.freenode.net/. Enter a nickname, then for the Channels field enter ##rabbitcube, and finally fill in the Captcha and hit Connect! We’ll be watching the episode and commenting there starting at 2:00 p.m. EST today.

Following the Kill la Kill liveblog we will take a short break, and then watch Sailor Moon Crystal at 3:00 p.m. EST.

Chatlog below the cut!


 
  01[14:00] This opening is… different.
[14:00] … Senketsu is the announcer now?
01[14:00] Oh FFS.
[14:00] A compilation episode. Of course.
01[14:00] They’re doing the whole compilation episode in one cold open, aren’t they?
[14:01] At least he’s getting through it fast
[14:01] Though I am having unpleasant His And Her Circumstances flashbacks
[14:01] Point to Ryuko
01[14:01] Okay, official third-best clip show ever.
[14:01] “caterpillar-eyebrowed?”
01[14:02] New opening?
[14:02] Ooh, new theme song
[14:02] and it’s good so far
[14:02] Wow
[14:02] That was an interesting character intro
01[14:02] Heavy emphasis on clothes, which made sense.
[14:03] That’s… more blood than this show usually spills
01[14:03] Like the fight scene there.
[14:03] So, by showing both Ryuko and Satsuki trapped by their own Life Fibers
01[14:03] Hmm, implied, uh, “scissoring” eh?
01[14:04] Oh, severe blood loss.
[14:04] They’re setting up the inevitable team-up against Satsuki’s mom
01[14:04] Unpleasant.
01[14:04] Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking. Same with image of that team standing between the two opposing sides.
[14:05] Her servants’ names are “Soroi” and “Iori?”
[14:05] Ah, of course Nui buts in
[14:06] “Still underway?” I thought they won a while ago
[14:06] He has a shiny weenie
[14:07] Gee, that’s totally going to discourage Mako
[14:07] Eeyup
[14:08] A water level?
[14:08] Huh… sad music all of a sudden?
[14:08] (am I still connected?)
[14:08] yes
[14:09] Eww
[14:09] That is disturbing
01[14:09] Um, no.
01[14:09] I do not like this sequence.
01[14:09] This is NOT okay.
[14:09] So this is one of the episodes that a lot of people bailed out of watching the show after.
[14:10] Gee, I wonder why
01[14:10] Okay, yeah, and the chakras, that was definitely a tantric thing.
[14:11] For a while, I thought Ragyo might be a puppet and Nui was the real Big Bad, but… no. Not after that scene
01[14:11] Yeah, that was pretty horrifying.
[14:11] Dafuq
[14:11] Oh, Mako
[14:12] *headdesks*
01[14:12] Not true!
01[14:12] Several animals make and wear hats.
[14:12] It’s movie science
01[14:12] Including elephantsw and trapdoor spiders.
[14:13] Whoa
[14:13] Trippy
[14:13] …Don’t tell me this is an Eva reference
[14:13] This show says “humans were born to be a creature that would serve clothing” with an almost straight face
01[14:13] Suddenly this is a dark Ambush Bug crossover.
[14:13] Eeyup, this is totally an Evangelion reference
01[14:14] Yeah, the suit wavered just like 2D Shinji in the finale.
[14:14] Ah, the Martian Panspermia Event
01[14:14] Oh man, not just referencing Eva but the Red Cross Book.
[14:15] The movie science is strong with this one
[14:15] And now it’s a 2001 reference
01[14:15] Yep.
[14:16] Ah, so Senketsu is going through the “vampire doesn’t want to hurt humans” character arc
[14:17] Whoa
[14:17] I should have seen this coming, but I didn’t
[14:18] Trippy
01[14:19] So he’s not so much “vampire doesn’t want to kill humans” as “vampire born to kill vampires.” So Blade or Alucard (Castlevania).
[14:19] Ah, good point
[14:19] Wait, if the Primordial Life Fiber guided human evolution, doesn’t it already control humanity effectively?
01[14:19] Oh.
01[14:19] Of course.
01[14:20] OF COURSE the school cultural festival will be the final arc.
[14:20] Oh, it’s Ragyo who wants to alter it for evil
[14:20] Ah, the Culture Festival
[14:20] “A haunted house? A cafe?”
01[14:20] “An alien invasion?”
[14:20] Or a stuffed animal exhibit, as Sakaki would request
[14:20] Hmm, now I’m picturing dolls brought to life by their own clothes as well
[14:21] I wondered how much longer that shot was going to go on
01[14:21] Ryuko’s response IS pretty great.
[14:22] Oh, of course, now he WANTS her to wear the outfit
[14:22] This guy needs a smackdown, stat
01[14:22] Normally I’d be complaining that the series hasn’t remotely done the ground work to make me feel anything about Senketsu being a weapon, but I’ve been watching Saikano all morning so *blubs*
01[14:22] Must be serious, it’s gone watercolor!
[14:22] That’s how it leaves off, because OF COURSE that’s how it leaves off
[14:23] Hmm… I like the new opening theme, but I think I prefer the old closing theme
01[14:23] Anyway, so, this episode was the reveal of the info that gets Satsuki and Ryuko to team up, I’m pretty sure.
[14:23] Eeyup
01[14:23] If my predictions are true, they will therefore actually team up next episode.
[14:23] No way can Satsuki avoid rebelling after THAT
[14:23] My memory of when the second OP appears was mistaken
[14:23] I thought that didn’t happen until a couple of episodes from now
01[14:24] Well, I think her final scene was pretty much confirmation of her intention to rebel.
01[14:24] The way she says “We’ll be ready for you?” after her mom leaves?
01[14:24] I mean, come on.
01[14:24] “You scratch my lapels, I scratch yours.” LOL
[14:24] Yeah, that was a great line
01[14:25] Okay, I’m off to squeeze in another episode of Saikano and then come back for Sailor Moon.
01[14:25] Wait, before that: final thoughts on episode?
[14:25] Alrighty then… wish I could stay for that
01[14:25] (Sorry, in a rush, I have to finish the series, finish the panel I’m watching it for, and write the next MLP article by midnight.
01[14:25] )
[14:25] Well, aside from… THAT SCENE, this is a nice development epis
01[14:25] Yeah.
01[14:26] Trying not to think about that scene, because uck.
[14:26] I have some stuff to say about the rape scene
[14:26] It might take a while and it might be better to leave it alone
01[14:26] That was the worst stuff since episode 1.
01[14:26] Why don’t you write it up as a comment on the blog?
[14:26] I’ll do that.
[14:27] That makes Mako’s family look even cuter and more harmless than the show seems to think they are
[14:28] (replace “harmless” with “lovable”)

0 thoughts on “Kill la Kill and Sailor Moon Liveblog Chat Thingy

  1. So, this is the episode in which Ragyo rapes Satsuki. As I mentioned in the chat, a lot of people bailed out of the show over it. That's legit – the way the scene is animated is not appropriate for the subject matter as written.

    As written, every scene in this episode with Satsuki in it is about the oppressive, smothering power Ragyo holds over her, and the origin of that power. In this episode REVOCS is revealed to be not an evil corporation recklessly exploiting dangerous stuff for power and profit, but a front for the clothing cult. Dr. Matoi believed, as Mikisugi says, that Ragyo made contact with life fibers only 20 years ago, but Ragyo reveals that the Kiryuins are hereditary emissaries of their alien clothing god.

    Flashback: here's a bit of Satsuki's speech in episode 3:
    >Exhibitionist? Nonsense! …
    >The fact that you are embarrassed by the values of the masses only proves how small you are!
    > If it means fulfulling her ambitions, Satsuki Kiryuin will show neither shame nor hesitation, even if she bares her breasts for all the world to see!
    Compare to Ragyo's monlogue:
    > When they [humans] become naked like this, they become so unbearably uncomfortable.
    > They are immediately overcome with the desire to cover themselves in the miraculous thing that is clothing.
    > That is instinct. A species that defies its instincts will eventually meet with extinction.
    The first Satsuki scene of this episode reminds us that whenever she wears Junketsu, she is winning a battle for dominance with that Kamui. Ragyo is the prophet for a cult that preaches domination of humans by clothing. For the heir apparent of that cult to be unashamed of nakedness, seize an article of clothing forbidden by Ragyo, and to dominate that clothing, is an “impurity” in the cult.

    And then the scene is animated like a sex scene, which is a Wrong way to animate it.

    (In previous chat's I've claimed that the name “Junketsu” was given to her Kamui by Satsuki when she claimed it in ep. 3. in fact Satsuki's father named it in the flashback seen at the beginning of that episode)

  2. Froborr, I do hope that you'll still post a liveblog of this episode. While I often disagree with your take on things, I always find your opinions interesting. (Though I confess that I don't remember a rape scene in the first episode.)

    With regards to *that* scene in this episode, I agree that this is a rape scene that was presented in an eroticized manner. That said, my take on it is this – they wanted to show that Ragyo is just that much of a monster, and used the imagery of her raping her own daughter to do it (availing themselves of the “rape is a special kind of evil” trope). I'm of the opinion, however, that they had to eroticize it simply because showing it as explicitly horrific would have broken the genre of the show too much for it to recover from, otherwise. In essence, this was the only practical context in which they could showcase such a scene.

  3. Um… I did post the liveblog? It's right there, in the post?

    As for your attempt to justify the rape scene, if showing a rape as rape would break the genre, that's a pretty clear sign you shouldn't be showing a rape. There's nothing funny or erotic about this scene; it serves only to disgust, and that disgust is aimed squarely at the makers of the show, not Ragyo, this failing the purpose you suggested of making Ragyo seem more evil.

    As for the first episode, when the suit gloms onto Ryuko it is both shot and voice acted as a rape scene, and framed as being humorous and mildly erotic. The result is, again, disgust–that scene is the reason I refused to watch past episode 1 for so long.

  4. Hm, I could swear that hadn't been posted when I wrote that!

    Likewise, I should mention that I was not attempting to justify the rape scene in that episode – I don't believe it (or any artistic creation) requires justification. Saying that something “shouldn't” have been created is a personal opinion – I know that goes without saying, but most of your second paragraph above feels like you're trying to present your opinions as objective facts (e.g. “there's nothing funny,” “failing the purpose”).

    As I mentioned before, I disagree with your opinion in this regard. I feel that the scene very expertly presents itself as an erotic encounter when you strip it (pun intended) of any context beyond the scene itself, while the context successfully tells us that this is Ragyo raping her daughter, adding a much more loathsome level to her character. That disgust is aimed directly at her, and touches the makers of the show not at all (as I don't believe that what people create necessarily, or even usually, tells us anything about the creators).

    Likewise, I'm not sure if I agree with the scene of Senketsu glomping Ryuko in the premiere episode being characterized as having elements of a rape scene, but that's because I don't remember the particulars of the scene very well (beyond Senketsu wrapping around Ryuko, demanding more blood and to be worn, while Ryuko freaks out and tries to get away from it).

  5. The creation of art is an act that occurs in the real world and has real-world consequences, and therefore has a moral dimension.. The decision to depict a rape is a decision to cause pain to a significant portion of the audience, and the makers of the show have chosen to inflict that pain solely to amuse and arouse themselves and that portion of the remainder of the audience who lack the knowledge or empathy to feel for the traumatized portion.

    The makers of the show have chosen to callously inflict pain on a significant portion of the audience just to get some fanservice, and in the process reinforced cultural narratives that eroticize rape. They have measurably worsened the material social conditions of the world, and I have no qualms about making a moral judgment in response. That judgment, in turn, feeds into my aesthetic judgment of the scene, an becomes the dominant (though not sole–I'm also quite sick of the show's fanservice and feel the scene would have been more effective without it) factor in my aesthetic rejection of the scene.

    Your claim that art requires no justification or can exist above moral considerations is nonsense. It implies that ANY action can be freed from moral constraint if you just frame it as art, an obvious absurdity.

  6. I read the article you linked to, and I strongly disagree with it (that's the “I don't always agree with your opinions” that I was referring to in my initial post). Simply put, I don't believe that the moral dimension of an action is determined by its consequences (“real world” or otherwise). Rather, I believe that a moral dimension is found within the nature of the action itself. As such, the action of “creating artwork” is one that I believe is inherently amoral (though the creator can imbue moral virtue into their artwork as a supererogatory action).

    Simply put, consequentialism has never struck me as a particularly valid way to form a moral code. It states that any action is only as bad as it turns out – that the ends will always justify, or condemn, the means. Since the nature of consequences is nebulous until they're actually determined, any particular action is therefore a moral question mark until the consequences are determined; moreover, since consequences can change over time, this suggests that all actions have a moral fluidity to them that varies depending on how the actions are interpreted.

    The fact that some people may feel traumatized by a piece of artwork is not, therefore, a legitimate disincentive to create it.

    Likewise, I don't agree with the idea of “reinforcing culture narratives,” as this suggests that people are empty vessels waiting to be filled with whatever messages are sent to them via the mass media. To the contrary, the very definition of maturity is that you have a fully-formed moral code, and that you can maintain it against external influences, modifying via your own internal reflections and ruminations, rather than being helpless as external messages change what you believe.

    The only people at risk of having their sense of what is and is not acceptable influenced in this manner are the mentally incompetent, and the immature. In the latter case, this is not a large concern because the nature of parents (and other role models) is to help mold the value systems of their children, making sure to weed out any bad ideas that they internalize and nurture the “proper” set of ethics (to use a slightly loaded term).

    Ergo, it is – to use your term – nonsense to suggest that this particular sequence has normalized sexual assault in the real world, and as such, any moral judgments passed on this sequence are therefore merely a reflection of personal taste masquerading as the guardianship of public morals.

    Simply put, any creative endeavor (e.g. artwork) – provided that it doesn't violate the negative values, or fail to fulfil the positive values (in an admittedly simplified deontological system of ethics) – is indeed freed from all moral constraints. This is self-evidently in the best interests of all people, as it prevents any one person's or group's sense of moral righteousness from becoming institutionalized.

  7. I'm not going to engage further here, as I regard the retreat from engaging in real-world issues into abstract theorizing to be itself immoral and cowardly, an have been informed by victims of such issues that it is hurtful to them when it happens. I apologize for my part in moving this thread in that direction; it is a bad habit of mine, and one I continue to work on.

    If you would like to debate the Fundamentals post, please do so there. Also, thank you for demonstrating I need to make at least one about metaethics.

  8. It's a shame that you're quitting the debate here, as I feel that this particular scene in this particular episode is a good point for lending a concrete example to what's otherwise a purely theoretical discussion.

    That said, I disagree with your characterization that “abstract” theorizing is somehow retreating from real-world issues. The nature of moral philosophy – like any philosophy – is dealing with abstractions, whether in the context of philosophical dimensions of real-world actions, or divorced from the real world altogether. Saying that morality is not defined from consequences is a retreat is disingenuous; saying that it's immoral or cowardly are childish insults pretending to be high-minded disdain. That some people might find certain media to be hurtful isn't in doubt – rather, I contend that such consequences are not the criteria from which the moral dimensions of such media should be judged.

    Likewise, I appreciate the apology, but notwithstanding the continued disparagement towards those with different beliefs than yourself, I don't think it's really necessary. As I noted, one cannot debate morality without some degree of abstract theorizing (though as you prioritize consequences over actions, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you feel that way).

    That said, if you feel that it's more appropriate to continue this debate on a different page of your blog, then I look forward to doing so there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *