I accidentally watched season 2 a few years ago before I realized it was the wrong season.

Then I waited until now to watch the first season, and was pleasantly surprised at how well it fared to the second season. My opinions largely lie between Psgels and Souther’s: pleased at the ambitions of the creators, the broad sketch of the characters, and disappointed at their incompetence at handling certain plots and the end of the season 2 (from what I recall).

As with every other mecha show, I consciously compared it to the greatest anime of all time (Evangelion) and found Code Geass wanting in certain aspects: dialogue was decidedly inferior, the plot arcs weren’t as tightly focused, and the animation was mediocre in spots. That said, Geass succeeded with the most important element: entertainment. It was entertaining, if not memorable like Puella Magi or Revolutionary Girl Utena. Geass did not deconstruct a genre, nor did it break new grounds. It belongs on the level of Death Note: anti-hero in the role of a protagonist. Oddly in both, the second season blows the potential of the first. Tsk.

You might not care, but I’m not intimidated by such words.

I never intended to call you “stupid” or a “liar” but if there are elements in the show that you’re not acknowledging or statements that I consider incorrect…it is my duty to disagree, point them out and explain why our opinions are different. That’s all I did.

I would even argue that my last post, while it was preceded by some harsh remarks (which weren’t directed at any specific person but at a way of thinking), ended as a respectful acknowledgement of disagreement. I haven’t ignored your rights.

That is completely different from the blanket dismissals that have been made of other people’s opinions in this section. If I were truly a “fanboy” as you’re suggesting, all of that would have been unnecessary and I should have, in fact, called you “stupid” or a “liar” instead. That’s not what I did.

But have it your way then. I knew this was going to happen. I believe I’ve already presented my own arguments in a fair amount of detail. I’ll just address a few things.

a)By definition, a theme is far more important than any subplot. It’s a matter of perception, however, whether or not you can call them “wasted” as I did not feel the themes were impossible to grasp. In addition, I would also argue that the missing origins of Geass -for example- were never the central topic of the show. The series was about Lelouch, not Geass, which was only a tool and a curse…not the ultimate “goal” of the plotline. Did the Geass subplot receive a shoddy treatment? Yes, unfortunately, and it does detract from the show’s technical quality.

b)You were the one who claimed Lelouch went from “calculating” to “insecure” from S1 to R2. The entire point of my mentioning incidents from S1 was, in effect, to show that Lelouch’s character was susceptible to emotional tensions and inner conflict long before R2.

Since the second half of R2 is full of tensions and conflicts of a similar nature, it follows that Lelouch’s character was not radically altered then…the process just continued and, while he had moments of clarity, Lelouch’s suffering was magnified by the tragedies that kept affecting him. You want more evidence? Almost every single death or misfortune he reacted to after the halfway point. It’s a (negative and uncomfortable) progression, not a contradiction.

c)In principle, asking for a better explanation is not wrong. However, saying that everything is just “random” and not trying to piece the events together does seem to suggest that you gave up too easily…which is understandable, in some instances, but I can’t agree with that as a general conclusion applied universally to every single character.

For example, since you were apparently referring to the term “Spinzaku” before…it must be said that comes from Suzaku’s ridiculous spin move, which was present in the show since the first episode of S1 (both as a person and as a pilot). Not explaining that is sloppy, yes, but not “out of character” since it’s a preexisting trait.

And, for that matter, Suzaku’s changes in allegiance are far from random. Why? Because they do have a visible cause and an effect. Examples of said causes: Euphemia’s death, Shirley’s death, the death of millions in Tokyo, the defeat of the Emperor and finally confronting Lelouch once again (which was the least explained of them all, at the time, but the final episode explicitly indicated that Lelouch had to convince Suzaku off-screen and needed to tell him his final plan to make them allies one last time).

My fundamental point is that appreciating certain aspects of Code Geass does not require “blindness” or “stupidity” like it has been previously suggested. If you’re going to write a review and make comments that claim there is only simple entertainment value and nothing else, fine. That’s your point of view.

It’s a respectable statement…but you shouldn’t bash other rational human beings who are capable of having a different interpretations that aren’t so limited and who can look at the show from a different perspective that requires no less intelligence or active thought.

Unfortunately but quite predictably, I must openly disagree with you…which is precisely what led me to post this in the first place.

My analysis isn’t limited to the premise. The story’s execution fell short due to a production rush and an excessive sloppiness towards the end of Code Geass R2, but my argument is that the thematic core of the series remained intact throughout the two seasons. The premise didn’t change and this can be understood by those willing to leave behind the twin bandwagons of blind trolling and blind praise.

In particular, your allegation that the essence of Lelouch’s character somehow completely changed between seasons is questionable and, I believe, is not supported by the evidence.

Once again, I must stress that Lelouch was never perfectly cold and calculating. The first season is full of instances where the duality of his character was made apparent enough. He made mistakes and, to a greater or lesser extent, they affected him. Examples include: his hesitations after becoming aware of the unintended consequences of the Narita battle (as seen through Shirley’s distress after losing her father), the various arguments he has with C.C. and Suzaku, his desperation after Euphemia’s death or when Nunnally disappeared. There are many others, to be sure, but I don’t intend to make a complete list.

This emotional tension -and his struggles to overcome it- is exactly what makes Lelouch different from other similar figures. If you wanted Lelouch to be absolutely resistant to emotional fallout or above and beyond human failings, then your problem does not lie with the second season but with the entire concept behind his character.

Which, if so, I would find to be…a strange paradox, if nothing else. And, just as well, to say that the second season did not deal with Lelouch’s fall seems almost preposterous.

In retrospect, that’s exactly what the entire second half of R2 was about: starting with Shirley’s death, Lelouch kept suffering and eventually became little more than a broken man by the time he faced his father. For better or for worse, Lelouch’s final decision was to enact Zero Requiem. An unrealistic plan that would never work in the real world, to be sure, but it makes thematic sense and brings finality after everything he had experienced.

If we are to speak of “bad” writing, I think we must make an important distinction between themes and events. The writing problems with Code Geass -and R2 in particular- are limited to the second of these areas. There are several events whose details were poorly explained or rely on implausibilities. However, the story is actually fairly coherent in terms of themes and, to say the least, this is what allows for a rational interpretation of even the most unrealistic developments…for those who are interested, admittedly.

As for the other characters, I do not share your generalization about their simply being “out of character”…rather, this ties into what I’ve just mentioned. I think the changes in their behavior weren’t properly explained, on the surface, but they aren’t irrational from an attentive viewer’s perspective who doesn’t need everything to be spoon-fed.

To take a page from the Umineko no Naku Koro ni fanbase…I fear that the harshest critics of this show are far too quick to surrender to the Witch, as it were, and prefer to stop thinking when something breaks their suspension of disbelief. Why think when you can just cry “trainwreck” and move on?

Fine, fine. Despite considering it an almost pointless endeavor…I’ll play along for a little bit.

The framework of the show -in both seasons- is based around Lelouch’s internal struggle and the consequences directly or indirectly brought upon himself and those surrounding him because of his decisions. It sounds obvious, but sometimes the most obvious things are the most overlooked.

In essence, it’s meant to be the operatic and melodramatic tale of a flawed young man who owes more to the Byronic concept of a hero than to the traditional mold of heroism.

His fate is one of repeated suffering and punishment in exchange for the steps he has taken in order to reach his objective. The degree of realism -or lack thereof- of specific events in the series doesn’t alter this basic concept at any point. How something happens may not be realistic but, more often than not, that’s not the point. It may reflect certain execution problems when particular developments and twists happen too quickly and without enough explanations, which is unfortunately enough one of the biggest annoyances during the second half of R2, but that does not change the direction of the narrative nor that of its central premise. It may be hard to watch -let alone stomach- but it’s not impossible to appreciate from a literary perspective.

From the very first episode to the last in the series…what makes Lelouch very different from someone like Light Yagami -and, by extension, something that goes beyond the extremely simplistic accusation of Code Geass “ripping off” Death Note- is the issue of emotional range and sensibility. With the possible exception of the final scene in Death Note (and the Yotsuba arc, but it didn’t have any lasting consequences for his character aftewards), Light usually does not show any signs of remorse or guilt. Lelouch, on the other hand, does display guilt.

Perhaps too much, in fact. He knows that he’s committing “evil” for the sake of “good” and knows that many his actions are all morally reprehensible. The thing is, he thinks he’s doomed to either move forward in spite of this or, as shown a few times, risks falling into a state of desperation and/or inactivity.

The irony of it all, and one of the main tragedies, lies in the fact that Lelouch is -at least deep down- a good person who has simply made too many wrong choices: fighting evil with more evil instead of choosing a more constructive path. Let’s be honest: he didn’t need to become Zero and fight Britannia. Not even his own sister wanted that from him. The audience sympathizes with his initial cause, to a greater or lesser extent, but he really could have saved himself a lot of trouble right from the start and at many other points.

Granted, bad luck and inconvenient plot devices are a factor in pushing him forward time and time again, but Lelouch almost always had a choice. Some people cannot tolerate his character’s later actions, pretending that making “wrong” choices is a sign of bad writing or stupidity…but I think that’s what actually makes him a more complex and tragic figure. Human beings make mistakes, including ones that external observers might consider very stupid, throughout all of our lives.

Whether he survived or not at the end isn’t the point. In either scenario, he’s achieved his goal but at the cost of taking far too many lives and forever distancing himself from practically everyone he ever knew.

Considering that a number of other individuals -not just in this site’s comments section but elsewhere- have already provided at least some well-reasoned arguments that you have apparently completely ignored through the use of incorrect generalizations that allow no room for respectful disagreement…why should I believe you would read any hypothetical essay of mine?

It seems you wouldn’t even reply. It’s a pity, but it does not appear that you’re willing to discuss anything at all. The fact that you’re claiming those who disagree with your position are all “fanboys” means you are extremely close-minded about this and need to resort to insults.

Reading the previous comments reveals that there are, indeed, some “fanboys” but also other individuals who shouldn’t be mistreated so carelessly.

If you believe that if someone recognizes the show has flaws -as I do- but also finds some positives -such as those that have been previously mentioned but not limited to them- they’re guilty of “fanboyism” then I guess you’ll always be prejudiced against anything I could ever write here.

Only a blind person would claim that the show is flawless -something I’ll never do- but those who pretend that there is nothing good to say about it at all aren’t exactly showing much attention to detail, let alone respect for their counterparts.

Therefore, the implication that everyone who likes the series is a fool or a fanboy is insulting for those of us who can articulate our own views quite seriously.

So what if this series is old? There’s no statute of limitations on commenting as far as I know.

I’ve certainly found better things to watch in the meanwhile, without having to come back and snipe at people who somehow committed the sin of daring to enjoy something you didn’t.

Are any of you familiar with Chinese history in the 1900s? The death of tens of millions of innocents was sort of a theme, along with intense autocratic political control. If a country like China is “stereotyped” as being “fascist” it is only because China has never had a democratic/liberal/progressive government in its entire history. Even Germany had democratic periods before the rise of the Nazis, whereas China has been nothing but emperors and dictators since the Middle Kingdom’s foundation. Their portrayal wasn’t that far-fetched.

RE: this show being shitty

Code Geass is largely a discussion of the pains of being a gifted person. Gifted people often are very clever at somethings, but when it comes to interpersonal relations, they can often make incredible stupid mistakes, as was the case with Lelouch. My second degree was in education, and I watched Code Geass during that time, and I found his experience to be very similar to that suffered by many gifted students. Of course, it is an exaggerated allegorical version of that, but much of Lelouch’s actions made more sense to me after my studies.

So that’s one person who liked the show and is able to write properly. :p

As someone who has taken offense to anti-Chinese propaganda before, I actually didn’t find Geass’ portrayal of the world to be that offensive. Sure it was very nationalistic on the surface, but I could hardly find any ill intent in the way things are done. It was more funny than anything else.

The music of Geass deserves praise. Several insert songs by Hitomi were fantastic (episode 19 and 25 of R2 come to mind), while the soundtrack didn’t disappoint either with the likes of ‘Madder Sky’ and ‘Across the Borderline’. While the repeated dependence on brass can be a little exhausting for the listener, the overall orchestration and themes were quite good I’d say!

Overall, I don’t think any other series appealed to me in so many ways as Geass did. It was moving, philosophical, thought provoking, and thoroughly entertaining.

Some inconsequential characters were poorly developed and rationalized, but most of the important ones weren’t. In my opinion, Lelouch’s character development throughout the series was fantastic. Rolo was also a very well-conceived character.

I think we can all agree that some plot developments were fueled by direction rather than rationalization (eg. Orange’s defect for Zero), but more of it were rationalized in ways that viewers simply couldn’t understand prior to the ending, and thus been deemed ridiculous (eg. Suzaku’s aliance with Lelouch at the end).

Geass was ambitious, but I don’t think it failed all that badly as you describe. The ending made a very strong point (actually, several), and the plot served to build everything up to that moment.

Then again, I think reviews on these type of series can be very subjective. As Keith suggested above, those that look for thematic depth and ‘grand pictures’ in anime tend to find Geass much better than those that focus on finer details.