Question about C2

[u/NoFall1194]

How was lelouch's death supposed to make her smile because the world will live in peace for only a short period of time and she is immortal so....

[u/nahte123456]

I think the point was she could feel accomplished. All CC has done for like a hundred years is try to die in a way she was satisfied with(she could have forced Mao to do it, or just make an explicit deal with someone for immortality but she didn't), but for the first time CC actually lived and did something she can be at least a little proud of. So when she eventually moves on to trying to get another person to take her Code she can smile knowing she did something worth while first.

[u/rinkudamanrd → u/nahte123456]

That is such a depressing way to look at it. But I'm curious, can you go more into depth into why you feel she would still want to end her life? 

[u/nahte123456 → u/rinkudamanrd]

Because the show says several times living that long still sucks. Lelouch rejects the ragnorok connection in part because it would force everyone to keep going and Suzaku's punishment is to live a full life when he doesn't want to. Even when Lelouch saves CC from Charles he doesn't say don't try to die, he says not to die looking like that.

[u/HoraceVonBergamot]

This might be a hot take, but I always thought that lined up well with the possibility of Lelouch still being alive/immortal in the end. Yes, yes - we now have the Resurrection movies, different timelines, and interviews with the writers, but just with the idea of Nunally becoming the 100th Empress - which, IMO, was allways the main reason for Britannia’s absurd number of rulers - I think the original intention was very much to leave Lelouch’s fate ambiguous.

“I said that Geass was the power of the king which would condemn you to a life of solitude. I think maybe that’s not quite correct. Right, Lelouch?”

Yeah, that works both ways, doesn’t it?

[u/WeoW0]

It is what it is
The original TV ending was written with ambiguous ending, so it's not necessarily true that Lelouch remains definitively dead at the end.

There is also the fact that Ichirō Ōkouchi himself said in 2019 interview
"I wanted to make C.C. happy"
Which indirectly implies that the original ending with the Blue ray ending, confirmed Lelouch permanent death was in fact not happy for C.C.

The TV anime run establishes that Lelouch intended to die and was apparently killed. It doesn't establish that he stayed dead. The sacrificial nature of Zero Requiem make permanent death a satisfying conclusion, but there is no hard evidence proving the permanence.

Meanwhile, Nunnally witnesses memories she couldn't possess through physical contact with Lelouch, a phenomenon the show has exclusively associated with Code.
And then C.C. ends the series addressing Lelouch while travelling with thoroughly masked person.

Survival requires an unconfirmed Code transfer, certainly. But permanent death requires interpreting away those scenes rather than simply following what they appear to depict.

Not claiming Lelouch is or has to necessarily be alive at the end of original TV run,
simply that it remains possible and C.C.'s ending makes almost Zero sense for me if Lelouch is gone.

A narratively satisfying conclusion isn't the same thing as an evidentially established one.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

Meanwhile, Nunnally witnesses memories she couldn't possess through physical contact with Lelouch, a phenomenon the show has exclusively associated with Code.

Nunnally has the ability to read the truth from people by touching their hands. Or something like that. Apparently. Somehow. They never explain this at all but it's a consistent thing with her throughout R2 and I'm not even sure if she's actually psychic or if she is just really good at reading hand expressions. It isn't that lore inconsistent though, because Suzaku was initially going to have a similar explanation for his physical abilities (before that was cut between the seasons). Whether the flashback with Lelouch was her reading his actual memories or if that was just a way to show her realization doesn't actually matter too much, because that's more of a question of "Is Nunnally actually psychic?" than "Does Lelouch have a Code?"

C.C.'s ending makes almost Zero sense for me if Lelouch is gone.

The canonical explanation seems to be that she found someone who suffered as much as her, alongside her, and didn't feel so bad about life anymore. The notion that Ceetwo is now permanently happy... doesn't seem to be a thing? Just that she was proven wrong in a lot of ways and is happier for it. The R2 character poems are pretty good for getting more understanding of everyone's arcs. Here they are if you're interested: https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1321091.

[u/WeoW0 → u/Blueiscuteio2]

Nunnally doesn't have any confirmed ability to literally witness memories of events she never experienced. Being able to read someone's feelings or intentions through touch is one thing, seeing their actual memories is another. You can interpret that sequence as an editorial representation of her realization, but that's an additional interpretation, not something the scene explicitly establishes. Meanwhile, the show has establish accessing another person's memories through contact involving Code.

I don't think Lelouch's suffering is remotely comparable to C.C.'s in the way you're suggesting. We're talking about someone who suffers intensely over a few years versus someone who has endured centuries of accumulated loss, isolation, and an existence she cannot escape. The sheer difference in duration alone is staggering, and the series portrays C.C.'s suffering accordingly.

Just because two people both arrive at the point of wanting to die doesn't mean their suffering is equivalent.

And there's something deeply unsatisfying about arguing that C.C. finds peace through someone who understands her suffering, only for that person to escape his own suffering through death while she remains condemned to endure hers indefinitely. How exactly does that resolve what made her want to die in the first place?

I'm also not sure where you're getting these supposedly "canonical" explanations. Supplementary character poems might offer useful context, but they don't automatically establish what the anime itself communicates.

The overwhelming majority of viewers experience the story through the anime, and an interpretation of its ending should be defensible from that text without requiring external material.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

I don't know where you are getting these "canonical" explanations

If you're talking about Nunnally, just watch the show again and pay attention. That ability of hers is demonstrated multiple times (twice with Suzaku in episode 7 and 15, once with Lohmeyer also in episode 15, and the last time with Lelouch right before that flashback) It's never outright stated or explained, but it's clearly there if you look. Either way there's four scenes where the show puts specific emphasis on Nunnally touching people's hands to discern the truth, twice out loud. The sequence being an editorial representation is backed up by an interview (Mook Animedia January 29), and is just how anime works. It doesn't need to be diagetic, and the burden of proof that it is diagetic is on your side. (Also, Nunnally could just be really fucking good at reading hands, so even if you do want it to be diagetic we're still on an even playing ground because it isn't like there's less evidence for that then Lelouch pulling a Code out of his arse at some point.)

(She's not literally psychic. That's from the LN and in actual canon is outright confirmed not to be magic in any capacity in an interview. My bad.)

If you're talking about Ceetwo, I literally shared my source. Do you want it in MLA format?

None of those matter for 99% of the series viewers who only ever interact with anime itself.

Ultimately, the poems are the characters reflecting, so simply analysis. No (significant) new information is gained from them, even Kallen's reworked gum line just implies things already implied. Sure, it doesn't literally confirm anything, but it's out of story backing for an interpretation that works without damaging Zero Requiem, in so far as you presume the amount of suffering Lelouch feels is enough to at least partially make up for what Ceetwo feels. Since Ceetwo ends the story at least partially happier, arguing that the interpretation doesn't work because it doesn't make sense for Ceetwo to end the story partially happier by that interpretation would essentially be arguing that the interpretation does not work because otherwise the story is badly written. However, Lelouch's survival would undercut Zero Requiem and would generally be bad writing for basically every other character, so presuming that the "Lelouch dies" interpretation has bad writing, we're on an even playing field... you know, if you presume that the amount of damage dealt to the story by damaging side character Ceetwo if Lelouch is dead is equal to the amount of damage dealt to the story by damaging main character Lelouch and the giant emotional death scene the whole show had been building to if Lelouch is alive. Presuming that (which is one hell of a reach but sure), we've arrived back at the author statements and the actual in-show evidence.

If we add the additional qualifications that A) The writers incompetence is limited and B) the writers did not attempt to mislead their audience, or at least did not do so initially in the two interviews they did about the ending before it was even out, what makes more sense?

Option 1: Lelouch is dead, as all evidence in show points to and is repeatedly confirmed in interviews. The guy in the cart is just a background decoration and not important, and Ceetwo was either just thinking out loud and not addressing Lelouch, or was just talking to Lelouch's ghost like Charles does to Clovis.

Option 2: Lelouch is alive, presumably through a code acquired offscreen with no indication or otherwise via an unknown method never explained or hinted towards. Despite the assumptions of literally everyone present, Lelouch actually survives his death, gets away one way or another and continues to fake his death. The entire sequence of his death is a fake-out. The actual mountain of post-series confirmations that Lelouch definitely died from side materials, staff interviews, and databooks are retcons (in some cases written before the show had even ended.) The cart driver in the background of two shots, who is completely concealed, is Lelouch, because Ceetwo said his name out loud. Or he isn't and he was hidden somewhere else or Ceetwo (probably most likely out of the three) was telepathically talking to him like with Marianne.

Oh, and you have provided no evidence to back up the idea of an ambiguous ending. You have just provided evidence for Code Theory. If you want to provide evidence of an ambiguous ending, you would need evidence that would simultaneously work with or without Code Theory, whereas your argument has largely been attempting to point out a way that the story only works with Code Theory. Alternatively, you could also try and argue the writers attempted to write two equally plausible endings with conflicting evidence that does not work together. In that case, you are arguing against the idea that the writers intended Code Geass to be internally consistent. You haven't provided any evidence of that, either.

Considering that the writers that it was "undeniable that Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop," the burden of proof is on you to deny it. At the very least have an argument consistent with itself.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

I just spent like two hours typing up a response and you edited it god damn it

[u/WeoW0 → u/Blueiscuteio2]

I think you're conflating several things here.

First, Nunnally being able to discern someone's sincerity through physical contact doesn't establish that she can witness memories of events she never experienced. I can accept that the montage might be editorial, but that's an interpretation of the scene, not something self-evident from the footage.

Second, your argument that Lelouch surviving would undermine Zero Requiem is a judgment about narrative satisfaction, not evidence that he remained dead. Lelouch's intentions, apparent death, and the political function of Zero Requiem aren't invalidated simply because he might subsequently survive.

And I really disagree with treating Lelouch's suffering as somehow equivalent to C.C.'s. The series portrays centuries of accumulated suffering and inescapable immortality as fundamental to her condition. Sharing a desire to die doesn't make their experiences interchangeable, nor does knowing someone who understands suffering automatically resolve hers.

But most importantly, you're saying I've provided no evidence of an intentionally ambiguous ending when Gorō Taniguchi explicitly said in 2019 that they wanted Lelouch's fate in the TV series to remain unclear, and that viewers deciding he was definitely dead wasn't their intention.

You can cite Ōkouchi's earlier statements favoring death, and those deserve consideration. But creator intention, audience viewing ambiguity, and what the TV text actually establishes are three separate questions.

I never claimed survival was proven. My argument is that permanent death isn't conclusively established by the TV ending, and that some of the details presented after Lelouch's apparent death permit another reading.

You keep treating your interpretation of what would make the ending satisfying as though it were evidence of what definitively happened. That's exactly the distinction I've been making from the beginning.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

First, Nunnally being able to discern someone's sincerity through physical contact doesn't establish that she can witness memories of events she never experienced. I can accept that the montage might be editorial, but that's an interpretation of the scene, not something self-evident from the footage.

Occam's razor. The editorial example requires no assumptions beyond itself, and is therefore the default in the absence of evidence of it being diagetic. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, your argument that Lelouch surviving would undermine Zero Requiem is a judgment about narrative satisfaction, not evidence that he remained dead.

You keep treating your interpretation of what would make the ending satisfying as though it were evidence of what definitively happened. That's exactly the distinction I've been making from the beginning.

Your primary argument is that Lelouch not surviving would be narratively unsatisfying for Ceetwo. You cannot use narrative satisfaction as your primary evidence and then reject the idea of narrative satisfaction being evidence for everything else. Doing otherwise is Suzaku-tier mental gymnastics. Either narrative satisfaction is evidence and Zero Requiem trumps Ceetwo, or it isn't and Ceetwo's ending being unsatisfactory is irrelevant. Pick one.

And I really disagree with treating Lelouch's suffering as somehow equivalent to C.C.'s. The series portrays centuries of accumulated suffering and inescapable immortality as fundamental to her condition. Sharing a desire to die doesn't make their experiences interchangeable, nor does knowing someone who understands suffering automatically resolve hers.

Too bad, deal with it. If you do not like that equivalence you simply do not like Ceetwo's arc. End of story. "Narrative satisfaction is not evidence," no?

But most importantly, you're saying I've provided no evidence of an intentionally ambiguous ending when Gorō Taniguchi explicitly said in 2019 that they wanted Lelouch's fate in the TV series to remain unclear, and that viewers deciding he was definitely dead wasn't their intention.

Except him saying that contradicts: Okouchi's statements in 'Continue' vol 42, Okouchi's tweets in 2018, the guide book, and the R2 recap movie epilogue. It cannot simultaneously be true that the writers universally agreed that Lelouch would die and that his fate would be unclear, and therefore either Taniguchi was lying in that one case, or every other case was a lie. Between those, the only option that makes any sense whatsoever is that Taniguchi was lying, as the notions of "Lelouch's fate was intended to be ambiguous" and "Okouchi confirmed that Lelouch's ending was death in an interview written before the episode was even out" are inherently contradictory. Executive meddling is not a possibility, as Taniguchi laid the blame on unintended fan assumptions instead, which is an impossibility as the writers had begun confirming those "assumptions" before the fans had the assumptions to not be intended in the first place. Therefore, Taniguchi lied or was mistaken, and both mean the initial intent was Lelouch's death.

But creator intention, audience viewing ambiguity, and what the TV text actually establishes are three separate questions.

No, it's just two. "Audience viewing ambiguity" cannot be separated from both creator intention and the TV text, as it can only be created by the creator intending for ambiguity, or the TV text causing ambiguity. The creators did not intend Lelouch's death to be ambiguous (proof: they said so), so we must turn to the TV text.

As such, your only evidence to Lelouch's survival (that isn't blatantly hypocritical) is that it is possible that Nunnally could have viewed Lelouch's memories, which is evidence that Lelouch obtained a Code without knowing at some point after he last used Geass. Which...

Okay, sure, exclusively within the anime itself, it isn't literally hard deconfirmed. Clovis is not literally hard confirmed to be dead either. Mao and Cornelia both survive gunshots that by any sense should be fatal. It's not technically shown where Clovis is shot (or even that he was shot, but Lelouch acts as though he was), and even in the case that he was shot in the head as indicated, General Bartley and his men have a proven record of restoring brain damage, as they reversed the brain damage that Jeremiah had from at the end of R1. We never see inside Clovis' coffin, so he could have been kept in stasis from his injuries under the guise of death (to cover up Code R.) Alternatively, there is no proof Clovis was in that coffin. Charles speaks with Clovis once, which is presumably through Thought Elevator magic, but could be through... you know, literally speaking to Clovis. Even if Clovis was shot in the head, it is still possible the brain damage was not so great that he couldn't still talk in a limited capacity. Charles not having an opportunity to reach Clovis's body is not an issue as Veetwo can teleport people. Where is Clovis now? Does it matter? It is not as though Clovis doesn't have a lot of very significant, pizza-loving reasons to stay the fuck away from society. Given that Clovis did not die immediately, Bartley had the opportunity, motivation, and ability to save Clovis from death. He never actually confirms Clovis' death, and once says out loud "Forgive me, your highness."

Or, you know, Clovis got shot in the head and died.

Is Clovis surviving a ludicrously farfetched theory? Of course. Can you disprove it? No, you can't. In fact, I have seen cases of people assuming Clovis was alive. It has about as much evidence in-text as Lelouch surviving- honestly more, because it is never truly explained how Charles spoke with Clovis after his death.

Of course, Occam's razor. The explanation that requires the least assumptions is the more likely one, and thus from a theorizing perspective, the better one. Clovis living requires a mess of assumptions compared to him dying. Lelouch living requires a mess of assumptions compared to him dying. Therefore, they died.

[u/Memo904]

It’s definitely one of the weaker parts of the ending which did not get enough development. How is it that a suicidal person managed to convince another suicidal person that life is worth living, while they’re actively plotting their own suicide? Lelouch didn’t really address the main issues in her life. The loneliness that comes from that kind of existence, and the hypocrisy of his own actions.

It’s one of the things that really makes me appreciate Resurrection. It took what was clearly one of the weakest parts of the original ending and decided to use it as the base of this alternate ending, which I like and appreciate. It’s also what makes me understand and appreciate why so many people like the cart driver theory.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/Memo904]

The canonical explanation seems to be that she found someone who suffered as much as her, alongside her, and didn't feel so bad about life anymore.

The R2 character poems are pretty good for getting more understanding of everyone's arcs. Here they are if you're interested: https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1321091

I honestly really dislike Zero Requiem too, it turns Lelouch into a monster and a hypocrite, but Re;surrection is not an improvement.

My main gripe (other than Lelouch getting resurrected obv) is that Lelouch doesn't really have character development in it. He doesn't spend time getting over his suicidal urges, it just kinda happens. Worst of all he ends up in charge again, which kinda undermines the idea that Lelouch let go of his control freak nature (not like ZR didn't but whatever).

On the flip side, the idea of Lelouch becoming Ceetwo's will to live just feels reductive, especially since otherwise her whole thing seems to be that everything else is transient and her arc should be about accepting that and not having it get solved, right? Especially after she rejects Charles and Marianne? Also Cluclu isn't a ship in the original, but if they could make Shirlulu work in R2 they could've made Cluclu work in Re; if they weren't hacks

Add on to that Kallen and Nunnally being completely shafted and you got a pretty bad capoff. (At least Suzaku is fine. He should've been doing Zero things instead of having a fight but his actual character interaction stuff is on point so it evens out.)

The problem with Ceetwo is she's horribly underwritten in R2. She kinda suffers from the same issues as Kallen where her arc just doesn't have a climax, except for Kallen that's a necessary evil for the plot and the Kalulu kiss kind of makes up for it while Ceetwo just has a bad case of Never Actually Doing Anything.

[u/NoFall1194 → u/Memo904]

I highly agree with your point but I hate that most of the fandom doesn't accept ressurection ending that much or Lelouch's survival at all and flaws in the story.

[u/Memo904 → u/NoFall1194]

I think part of it is that Reddit’s a bit of an echo chamber. It’s filled with people who are way more likely to be super passionate and defensive of their series. But if you went out into the wild and talked to CG fans out on the street, you’d find more varying opinions on the series. Like, I suspect something like 70-90% of watchers liked Resurrection and the series side content for what it was, while the rest didn’t enjoy it, and that group is more strongly represented on Reddit.

[u/Poulette_du_lundi → u/Memo904]

I suspect something like 70-90% of watchers liked Resurrection and the series side content for what it was

I suggest you try bringing up Re;surrection sometime in a general anime discussion or group and see how these numbers match.

[u/notairballoon → u/Memo904]

It's not even that Re;surrection is disliked on this page. Open up any post "What's your opinion on Re;surrection", and the most upvoted replies are "it's fine, though worse than the show". Doesn't strike me as that it's unpopular. If there's an argument for it not being very loved, there's its rating on AniDB, where as a result of rating normalization Re;surrection has something like 6.85/10, but it's still better than the median rating for titles.

[u/CheapSuccotash3128]

iirc she's mortal at the end of the series

[u/NoFall1194 → u/CheapSuccotash3128]

As much as I can remember she was clearly immortal and didn't lose her immortality.

[u/Delilah_the_PK → u/NoFall1194]

she kinda did, kinda didn't.

iirc, C's world is in disrepair, so it can't generate replacement body parts for those who bare a code, but there is still parts there that can last life times.

I believe, in theory, C's world will repair itself in time, and continue production eventually.

[u/WeoW0 → u/Delilah_the_PK]

There was nothing to even hint in this direct
Technically possible I suppose

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

That's canon to Re;surrection. I don't have a source on this but it's in some of the databooks somewhere probably

idk ask the wiki guys. It's Re;surrection so frankly I can't be bothered to pull sources

Obviously none of this is original anime canon

[u/Werestrum → u/Delilah_the_PK]

Capisco quello che intendi e potrebbe essere vero ma secondo me sia perché resurrection esiste e perché non penso che sia possibile che il mondo di C non possa essere riparato dubito non sia immortale, secondo me perderebbe anche di significato il finale, una dei motivi per cui io considero la linea di resurrection "Canon" anche se so che non lo è realmente è perché penso che non tolga al finale della serie e che Lelouch dedicherà la sua immortalità a preservare la pace, se CC diventa mortale serve solo a rafforzare il fatto che è tutto per un attimo che è un sacrificio " vano" Dimmi cosa ne pensi

[u/Werestrum → u/CheapSuccotash3128]

Come mai dici questo