Madoka Magica - Movie 3 Spoilers and Speculations

[Sol Falling]

Apologies for the delay in reply; I've been somewhat occupied with real-life obligations.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Well, there is a possible exception here. If Homura was to enact a means through which Madoka could achieve her dreams without becoming Madokami, then a good argument could probably be made that Homura's actions were beneficial to Madoka on the whole.

That this is possible is in fact a simple argument to make.

But, alas, I'm fearful that what Kaisos Erranon wrote here could be mostly if not entirely accurate.

What he wrote: The thing is that as long as Madoka has a purpose, as long as she feels that she's making a difference, she's happy.
Homura -cannot- be happy unless Madoka is safe, normal, static and therefore purposeless.
Their goals are inherently incompatible.

This is a false dichotomy as much as the desire vs. duty conflict. Homura's rejection of Madoka's self-initiative is explicitly premised upon the sacrifice/'foolishness' involved in becoming a mahou shoujo. There's nothing to say that Homura would oppose Madoka pursuing a meaningful purpose as a normal human. Similarly, not to take anything away from the impressiveness or significance of Madoka's decision at the end of the TV series, but it's rather disrespectful to presume that the only way Madoka's life could've had meaning/achieved a purpose was as a god/puella magi. Homura and Madoka's goals are not incompatible on the question of Madoka achieving happiness. They are only incompatible in terms of their relative care/concern for the world in general.

I kind of disagree. Madokami didn't look unusual to me here. She certainly didn't make me think hardened or dispassionate. And not long after she gets her memories back, we see her smiling very widely (in one of the screenshots I provided above). This clearly conveys happiness, imo.

To clarify, the scene I was referring to was after Homura hijacked the universe, where Madokami was beginning to reform within the school hallway.

Wow, so I take it you hated the Madokami concept then? I mean, since you seem very gung-ho over Homura tearing it down completely.

I recall being very enthusiastic about the ending to the TV anime too. It's simply that I value self-actualization in all forms, and am glad to see Homura achieve a status equal to Madoka. It's not that I'm gung-ho over Madoka being torn down; I'm gung-ho over Homura being raised up, with the confidence that Madoka will be restored eventually.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's a very fair point. I'll raise the point that Madokami is also timeless. Can she really CHANGE, then? Like can she go from not missing her family to then missing them later? It's not like she experiences days, weeks, years...

Bringing up Madoka's timelessness calls into question whether she could experience the human condition of happiness in the first place. If Madoka could not feel the transitory pain of a moment recalling her absence in her family's lives, this would be a basis already for Homura to believe she'd be happier as a mortal.

I had a LOT of fun writing that, part, lol. Anyway, I think you and I are on the same page here. While I'm not really doubting Homura's motivation or that it makes sense for her character, I'm refuting Kazu-kun's implication that Homura can be 'right' or thematically validated. I think it's pretty clear that the audience is meant to refute Homura's thesis.

If it comes down to an ideological debate between Homura and Madoka, I'm going to side with the latter every time. One is an enlightened being who's able to see past her own emotional state and the other is a broken bird who can't let go.

I feel that it's perfectly possible for Homura to be thematically validated, because the conflict between her and Madoka is artificial in the first place. Homura's pain is certainly Madoka's pain, because Homura is a prominent part of the world which Madoka loves. However, Homura's pain cannot be ended unless Madoka takes on a lesser form of self-sacrifice. Madoka just needs to teach Homura a bit more about loving the world, whereas Homura merely needs to teach Madoka a bit more about loving herself. Homura's struggles could easily be validated within this frame.

Now to butt in on the yuri debate...:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But, like with Kyosaya, that's basically pandering. And as a homosexual I have to admit that I basically find this whole trend in general to be pretty goddamn disgusting. It's not new to Puella Magi or even anime or even fiction, but I find it pretty gross that everyone has to force every strong emotional dependency or connection in fiction as being completely and totally romantic.

This is a pretty amusing/interesting train of thought because it's not that way for me at all. Rather, I frequently use the same kind of criticism/reasoning to put down het pairings. So I can confidently say that it is not at all the case that I romanticize particular yuri relationships because I cannot appreciate the significance of a platonic one.

Don't even deny it, either. Pretty much the vast majority of everyone who claims that HomuMado and KyoSaya is OBVIOUS claims such because they WANT it, and it appeals to them, and it's a shining spark of something sweet and good and comforting in a sea of cynical, real darkness that is the franchise.

I'll preface the following statements with the fact that I'm not heavily within the Madoka yuri fandoms, but do support the officially sanctioned pairings. However, I'm not sure where I have ever seen HomuMado or KyouSaya fans claim that a reciprocal relationship was 'obvious' from within the canon. The only claims I have seen are that the relationships have obvious romantic connotations (from at least one party in either case), and that the relationships, as romanticized, are obviously sanctioned by the franchise owners/creators.

And it sells, and that's why the IP owners will create official artwork, games, merchandise, and even a sequel that will pander to this part of the fanbase, because it can be harmlessly included after the fact without contradicting anything explicitly and it satisfies romantic-fetishists.

And they'd of done this regardless of the original authorial intent, because that's how intellectual properties work. The portrayal of official or canon lesbian material does not indicate that this is how the characters were WRITTEN at the time of their original publishing.

I don't see how identifying potential commercial motivations for such sanctions/depictions gives you grounds for criticizing the fans who partake in it. Nor do I find your implicit assertion that the 'original' authorial intent/process of creation, must not have included any trace of these commercial motivations/appreciation for such fan gratuities, necessarily believable. Is there really a basis for you to be categorically denying that there might have been romantic motivations at play in Kyouko's sacrifice for Sayaka? If not, and the story is as ambiguous as you claim, there is no basis for criticizing the fans who are merely indulging in their preferred interpretation.

The thing is, if there were some fan doujinshi which emphasized and celebrated the platonic connection between Sayaka and Kyouko, I'm sure that KyouSaya fans would enjoy it. That's because such an interpretation does not in any way interfere with their own interpretations or appreciation for the story. However, I only see anti-KyouSaya fans complaining that KyouSaya is 'pandering' or 'unofficial'. Basically, these are one-way petty complaints about people liking what one doesn't like. I think that's pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by TheSix

I'm not "devoted to the idea that they aren't lesbians"

You pretty much betray that statement on the very next line:

there is no canon indication that the two are romantically interested in each other, and the insistence that to behave as they did there would have to be does in fact disservice anybody who has cared to a large extent for another human being outside of a romantic relationship, and an insistence that arguably undermines the themes of the series itself.

Seems to me that you are pretty devoted to criticizing anybody who partakes in the fandom. Your denial of it only amounts to pedantry.

Incidentally, I should mention that as a yuri fan liking KyouSaya is in pretty good taste even based solely on the quality of the doujins produced for the pairing. Whatever thematic/literary deficit you feel the fans develop towards the show, they make it back up over there. Overall, the fans are happy, the doujinshi authors are happy, the show's creators are happy. I'm really not sure what you have to complain about.

You know, speaking as a yuri fan myself, I really wish yuri fans wouldn't sort of settle for this teasing. If an anime show and its makers wants a yuri pairing to be taken as basically official then it should give a very good in-canon/in-story reason (or reasons) for it to be taken as such.

I don't have a problem with KyouSaya shippers. But I do have a problem with people arguing that it's "official", especially based on the TV series alone. An official pairing ought to be totally supportable by canon material alone (i.e. the actual story content). All this other stuff like character songs and artwork by the character designers can be a nice framing for this official pairing painting, but it shouldn't be the painting itself.

As for myself, I'm actually disappointed by the trend within western yuri fandom towards insisting that only explicit romance/kissing/sex/etc. between girls ought to be accepted as yuri. The reason for that disappointment sort of precisely mirrors AuraTwilight's complaint above, the over-emphasis on romantic/sexual love. There are certainly enough explicit yuri works already available that such an emphasis doesn't really reflect lack of content so much as narrow-mindedness. As works of literature, many of the 'subtexty'/non-explicit yuri works are still amongst the best yuri works out there (for example, it is an absolute crime that many modern yuri fans feel that it is a permissible omission to skip out on Marimite). As yuri fans, I feel that works which develop or emphasize particularly exceptional examples of platonic love (between girls) absolutely should be relevant to our interests.

There's nothing to be gained from narrowing our definition of yuri (rather, the usage of yuri in Japanese nearly sort of implies a sort of ambiguity; for works which are very direct or clear about their orientation, there is a qualifying term, "gachi yuri"; and for works which deal explicitly with female-female sexuality/identity, they have a different genre term, "les"). Conversely, considering its massive success/popularity and its strong in-content emphasis upon the relationship between female characters, I think it is very appropriate that Madoka Magica is considered a premier yuri series.

[ReinWeiss]

I was going to respond, but basically what Sol Falling said.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I don't have a problem with KyouSaya shippers. But I do have a problem with people arguing that it's "official", especially based on the TV series alone.

This is my thing. I'm a Kyoko x Sayaka shipper, but until the movie it was far from official. It was stronger than any other Kyoko pairing or Sayaka pairing, but that isn't saying much when the only official pairing in the series was Kyousuke x Hitomi.

There's a lot of hints and nudges in the series for them, but that's all it was: winks and nods.

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

As for myself, I'm actually disappointed by the trend within western yuri fandom towards insisting that only explicit romance/kissing/sex/etc. between girls ought to be accepted as yuri.

Sounds like you're trying to force shoujo ai into the yuri label, to be honest. Yuri is sexual. Even the definition of yuri is "comics and novels about female homosexuality".

ユリ (yuri ) (1) (2) (n) (sl) - comics and novels about female homosexuality
- Lilium
- lily

百合 (yuri )
ゆり (yuri ) (1) (2) (n) (sl) - comics and novels about female homosexuality
- Lilium
- lily

[TheSix]

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

You pretty much betray that statement on the very next line:

Seems to me that you are pretty devoted to criticizing anybody who partakes in the fandom. Your denial of it is just pedantry.

Incidentally, I should mention that as a yuri fan liking KyouSaya is in pretty good taste even based solely on the quality of the doujins produced for the pairing. Whatever thematic/literary deficit you feel the fans develop towards the show, they make it back up over there. Overall, the fans are happy, the doujinshi authors are happy, the show's creators are happy. I'm really not sure what you have to complain about.



As for myself, I'm actually disappointed by the trend within western yuri fandom towards insisting that only explicit romance/sex between girls ought to be accepted as yuri. The reason for that disappointment sort of precisely mirrors AuraTwilight's complaint above, the over-emphasis on romantic/sexual love. There are certainly enough explicit yuri works already available that such an emphasis doesn't really reflect lack of content so much as narrow-mindedness. As works of literature, many of the 'subtexty'/non-explicit yuri works are still amongst the best yuri works out there (it is an absolute crime that many modern yuri fans feel that it is a permissible omission to skip out on Marimite). As yuri fans, I feel that works which develop or emphasize particularly exceptional examples of platonic love (between girls) absolutely should be relevant to our interests.

There's nothing to be gained from narrowing our definition of yuri (rather, the usage of yuri in Japanese nearly sort of implies a sort of ambiguity; for works which are very direct or clear about their orientation, there is a qualifying term, "gachi yuri"; and for works which deal explicitly with female-female sexuality/identity, they have a different genre term, "les"). Conversely, considering its massive success/popularity and its strong in-content emphasis upon the relationship between female characters, I think it is very appropriate that Madoka Magica is considered a premier yuri series.

There is a difference to "being devoted" to the idea that they aren't lesbians and considering no part of the source text to confirm that they are. Devotion is a strong, unwavering loyalty, and I'm less loyal to the denial that Kyouko and Sayaka are in a romantic relationship than just unconvinced that said romance exists. I could accept it as somebody's reading of the series, but claiming it's the absolute fact of their interactions when the text doesn't support it leaving the realm of friendship is incorrect.

And by accepting that as somebody's reading of the series, I accept that other people do like to ship them or consider them a couple, and can discuss that as much as they like as long as they don't insist it's the fact (unless they have evidence from the text that it is, which I don't see). I don't have anything against people "participating in the fandom", whether it be through doujins, fanart, or whatever, people are completely free to do that. The only thing I'm insistent on is that the relationship between the two being romantic isn't one that I consider as supported by the text.

Also, honestly, if we're going by the broader definition of "yuri" that you outlined there - one defined as also involving close friendship as well as romantic aspects - then I would actually agree in labelling the show as a yuri series: Romantic or no, there are definitely strong feelings between both pairs. However, that's not what I, at least, was discussing: The discussion I was participating in was one that revolved around whether the romantic aspects of those relationships were in fact present within the series or not. I would agree with applying the definition you gave towards the show, but that wasn't what I was arguing against.

[ReinWeiss]

Originally Posted by GDB

Sounds like you're trying to force shoujo ai into the yuri label, to be honest. Yuri is sexual. Even the definition of yuri is "comics and novels about female homosexuality".

"Shoujo ai" is not a valid term. It is something the western fandom came up with to try an differentiate explicit and non-explicit yuri. In Japan it all falls under "Yuri".

Please do not use it.

[ReinWeiss]

Originally Posted by TheSix

There is a difference to "being devoted" to the idea that they aren't lesbians and considering no part of the source text to confirm that they are. Devotion is a strong, unwavering loyalty, and I'm less loyal to the denial that Kyouko and Sayaka are in a romantic relationship than just unconvinced that said romance exists. I could accept it as somebody's reading of the series, but claiming it's the absolute fact of their interactions when the text doesn't support it leaving the realm of friendship is incorrect.

But no one says that the romance "exists", just that it can exist. That supposing the two of them, given different circumstances, could reasonably end up together is what most KyoSaya fans believe.

Yes, they came down with a bad case of the dead before it could happen, but so what?

Your position seems to be "they are very very very good friends but its absolutely not romantic and couldn't possibly be construed that way", which is a very common way of dismissing female/female relationships. "Why can't they just be friends?" is the call, which amazingly enough seems to apply only in yuri (and yaoi, I guess) ships, and never for heterosexual ships.

its a pretty blatant double standard that your posts have been playing right into.

The only thing I'm insistent on is that the relationship between the two being romantic isn't one that I consider as supported by the text.

Thats nice. We disagree. Are you going to continue being obnoxious about it?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

That this is possible is in fact a simple argument to make.

But there is no canon evidence that Homura is, in fact, enacting a means through which Madoka could achieve her dreams without becoming Madokami. You're certainly free to think that Homura will enact such a means, but I personally would have preferred it if there was clear evidence thereof.

This is a false dichotomy as much as the desire vs. duty conflict.

Not necessarily. It's a viable interpretation of Homura's character until/unless she demonstrates otherwise.

Similarly, not to take anything away from the impressiveness or significance of Madoka's decision at the end of the TV series, but it's rather disrespectful to presume that the only way Madoka's life could've had meaning/achieved a purpose was as a god/puella magi.

I don't know if that's the only way, but it's probably the way that would be the most fulfilling for Madoka. Why not let Madoka become a Puella Magi again - Not Madokami, but a Puella Magi like Mami and the rest?

Bringing up Madoka's timelessness calls into question whether she could experience the human condition of happiness in the first place.

I disagree. I don't see any inherent contradiction between being timeless and being happy.

I'll preface the following statements with the fact that I'm not heavily within the Madoka yuri fandoms, but do support the officially sanctioned pairings.
However, I'm not sure where I have ever seen HomuMado or KyouSaya fans claim that a reciprocal relationship was 'obvious' from within the canon.

I'm honestly at a loss here. If a reciprocal relationship is not obvious than how is such a pairing "officially sanctioned"?

A pairing is either official, or it isn't. If a pairing is official, then that means it's clearly established in the narrative itself. Most VN adaptations, for example, have an official pairing clearly established by the end of the narrative.

Keep in mind that a pairing doesn't have to be official simply to be viable. Teasing alone can suggest viability, but it doesn't make a pairing official.

You pretty much betray that statement on the very next line:

No, TheSix never did that. I don't see anything untoward or excessively critical in what you quoted there. In fact, what TheSix wrote seems quite sensible to me. Your criticism of him is rather over-the-top and unwarranted.

TheSix is simply interpreting the narrative and its characters based on what's actually contained in the story. There's nothing wrong about that. There's nothing wrong about doing that and coming to a sincere different conclusion than some other fans or viewers might.

As for myself, I'm actually disappointed by the trend within western yuri fandom towards insisting that only explicit romance/kissing/sex/etc. between girls ought to be accepted as yuri.

We already have a term for vaguely romantic friendship between girls. That term is "shoujo-ai". Mari-Mite is indeed a wonderful shoujo-ai work. But it contains precious little yuri.

There are certainly enough explicit yuri works already available...

Maybe in manga. Less so in anime, in my experience. Shoujo-ai tends to be more dominant than yuri in anime. I'd like to see more clear-cut yuri within anime. I don't see anything wrong with that desire. There's nothing "narrow-minded" about that desire, and I'm amazed that yuri fans would object to it.

Wouldn't you and ReinWeiss like to see more clear-cut yuri in anime? Wouldn't it be nice to have more clear-cut full-fledged yuri relationships in anime?

Instead of having to rely on freaking character songs, wouldn't it be great to have the pairing clearly established in the narrative itself?

There's nothing to be gained from narrowing our definition of yuri

Sure there is something to gain from it. It's called precision. It's good when words have very precise meanings because that ensures greater understanding in conversation, greater accuracy in genre labeling, and just greater accuracy in general.

And besides, we already have 'shoujo-ai' to describe "romantic friendship between girls". And I've certainly come across 'shoujo-ai' a lot more than I have 'gacha yuri'. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard 'gachi yuri' before.

[ReinWeiss]

PLEASE STOP USING SHOUJO AI

PLEASE

I'm begging you. Its not a real term. The term is "Yuri", "Girl's Love" if you must. But not Shoujo goddamn ai.

[TheSix]

If it's a term we can use to distinguish between romantic and unromantic affections, why not?

Unless of course that isn't actually the Japanese meaning, in which case Girls Love would probably be the better term.

[ReinWeiss]

Originally Posted by TheSix

If it's a term we can use to distinguish between romantic and unromantic affections, why not?

Unless of course that isn't actually the Japanese meaning, in which case Girls Love would probably be the better term.

They use it in japan for pedophilia.

Please do not use it. Just use "yuri". Japan uses "Yuri" and "Girl's Love" (in Katakana) interchangeably

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ReinWeiss

They use it in japan for pedophilia.

See, that's the kind of thing you say the first time, instead of just trying to force people to stop using a term because "it's not real" (even though if it means something, or it's used for something, then clearly it's real).

[TheSix]

Originally Posted by ReinWeiss

They use it in japan for pedophilia.

Oh. Well then.

Although yeah, it probably would have been best to explain that while initially demanding it's abandonment.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by ReinWeiss

But no one says that the romance "exists", just that it can exist.

Kaisos Erranon called it EFFECTIVELY OFFICIAL, in all caps, in this post here. How can a romance be EFFECTIVELY OFFICIAL but not definitively exist?

That supposing the two of them, given different circumstances, could reasonably end up together is what most KyoSaya fans believe.

Sure, I have no problem with that. Ship away.

Originally Posted by ReinWeiss

PLEASE STOP USING SHOUJO AI

PLEASE

I'm begging you. Its not a real term. The term is "Yuri", "Girl's Love" if you must. But not Shoujo goddamn ai.

Heh. It's kind of amusing that someone with a Tsubasa Kira avatar is begging someone with a Honoka Kousaka avatar. Maybe that can be an inspiration for a future yuri-fic by me.

Would it make you feel better if I used the terms "Yuri" and "Yuri Lite"?

I do think there's value in differentiating between explicit romantic relationships, and vaguely romantic ones that could conceivably be purely platonic. There's times when I want the former, and not just the latter.

[ReinWeiss]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Would it make you feel better if I used the terms "Yuri" and "Yuri Lite"?

I don't think you need different terms. Its all yuri.

[TheSix]

Even if the Japanese definition covers the entire spectrum, it would help to have a more specific term to avoid confusion. We could just use "Girl's Love" though I guess.

[ReinWeiss]

Originally Posted by TheSix

Even if the Japanese definition covers the entire spectrum, it would help to have a more specific term to avoid confusion. We could just use "Girl's Love" though I guess.

I don't think you need to be more specific, except to note that its "explicit" or something if it contains actual, you know, sex.

Its pretty easy to make this distinction when necessary.

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by Sol Falling

Bringing up Madoka's timelessness calls into question whether she could experience the human condition of happiness in the first place. If Madoka could not feel the transitory pain of a moment recalling her absence in her family's lives, this would be a basis already for Homura to believe she'd be happier as a mortal.

Wrong. You're forgetting that at the time of her ascension, Madoka was incredibly blissful and satisfied. If her timelessness makes her incapable of changing emotional states, then she's always happy because she's forever riding that initial high of her ascension without ever coming down from it.

Whether that's alright or not is another matter entirely.

I feel that it's perfectly possible for Homura to be thematically validated, because the conflict between her and Madoka is artificial in the first place. Homura's pain is certainly Madoka's pain, because Homura is a prominent part of the world which Madoka loves. However, Homura's pain cannot be ended unless Madoka takes on a lesser form of self-sacrifice. Madoka just needs to teach Homura a bit more about loving the world, whereas Homura merely needs to teach Madoka a bit more about loving herself. Homura's struggles could easily be validated within this frame.

Well, or Homura could cope with Madoka's sacrifice in the first place instead of imposing herself onto Madoka. Or they can becoem twin deities so they can have their cake and eat it too.

Re:Yuri Arguments:

This is a pretty amusing/interesting train of thought because it's not that way for me at all. Rather, I frequently use the same kind of criticism/reasoning to put down het pairings. So I can confidently say that it is not at all the case that I romanticize particular yuri relationships because I cannot appreciate the significance of a platonic one.

Mmkay. I don't think I was putting down anyone specific, so no need to defend yourself like this. I'd give individuals the benefit of the doubt that they have non-disgusting reasons for liking a thing.

I'll preface the following statements with the fact that I'm not heavily within the Madoka yuri fandoms, but do support the officially sanctioned pairings. However, I'm not sure where I have ever seen HomuMado or KyouSaya fans claim that a reciprocal relationship was 'obvious' from within the canon. The only claims I have seen are that the relationships have obvious romantic connotations (from at least one party in either case), and that the relationships, as romanticized, are obviously sanctioned by the franchise owners/creators.

I support the pairings in fandom and such too, because why not, honestly? It just bugs me when people treat it like there's NO OTHER EXPLANATION for these relationships except rabu.

Also, yes, fans have claimed these loves are 'obvious' all over the place. Your testimony that you haven't seen it is only evidence that you haven't dug around in the places I have or nearly as hard. It's out there. It's the internet, you should know it is. :P

I don't see how identifying potential commercial motivations for such sanctions/depictions gives you grounds for criticizing the fans who partake in it. Nor do I find your implicit assertion that the 'original' authorial intent/process of creation, must not have included any trace of these commercial motivations/appreciation for such fan gratuities, necessarily believable. Is there really a basis for you to be categorically denying that there might have been romantic motivations at play in Kyouko's sacrifice for Sayaka? If not, and the story is as ambiguous as you claim, there is no basis for criticizing the fans who are merely indulging in their preferred interpretation.

The thing is, if there were some fan doujinshi which emphasized and celebrated the platonic connection between Sayaka and Kyouko, I'm sure that KyouSaya fans would enjoy it. That's because such an interpretation does not in any way interfere with their own interpretations or appreciation for the story. However, I only see anti-KyouSaya fans complaining that KyouSaya is 'pandering' or 'unofficial'. Basically, these are one-way petty complaints about people liking what one doesn't like. I think that's pretty pointless.

Haha, woah, loaded statements all around, Batman.

I'm not criticizing fans for enjoying commercial yuri-fuel, I'm criticizing them for exalting romantic love above all others, even though a demonstrable theme of the series is what people will do for the people in their lives, not just their love interests. It is not Eros that drives Madoka's final miracle, it is Agape. It is not Eros that drives Kyouko's actions, it's Storge (even if she's romantically interested in her, their connection and interactions are based on what they have in common, where they contrast, and their potential for comradrie).

But this is a symptom of a greater complaint I have about the human race in general, as described. I don't blame Madoka fans or creators for something that is at a deeper-rooted internationally intercultural, possibly even evolutionary level.

But hey, you know, you're right, there's no grounds for saying the authorial intent didn't involve these commercial interests. It's not like anyone's ever asked Urobuchi or the other creators in interviews or anything.

Oh wait, haha.

But, staying in productive means of conversation, I DO have means for categorically denying Kyouko's romantic interests being involved in her sacrifice, and it's pretty simple: She has a complete set of non-romantic motivations that adequately explain every interest, action, thought, and word that Kyouko makes or performs regarding everything Sayaka-related, and romance would have to run so parallel and non-interferingly to her psychology as to be irrelevant.

And if something in a narrative is both undemonstrated and irrelevant, it probably doesn't exist, and certainly has no NEED to exist. Kyouko very demonstratably sees her younger self in Sayaka, and wants to prevent her from repeating her mistakes. When she softens up to her, she tries to be her 'senpai' a similar way Mami was for her, and ultimately, Sayaka makes her re-evaluate her own way of living. When she learns the true form of witches, and how utterly unfair it was to Sayaka, she rebels against it, and she sentimentally wants to reconstruct the Magical Girls stories she believed in. She wants to regress to when she was innocent, and she's using Sayaka as a means of atonement.

In the end, she decides the best way to even the scales is to sacrifice herself. While she doesn't want Sayaka to be alone in the end, there is certainly a part of her that doesn't want to bear getting out of the situation scott-free. Ironically, the Christian girl has a martyr complex. Who'd of thunk?

By the way, I enjoy your hypocritically criticizing everything TheSix and I said as being merely petty, pedantric, pointless tantrums about other people liking things we didn't. That's not, like, dismissive, condescending, rude, or completely dickish of you, or anything. TOTALLY makes me want to respect your opinion after you threw us under the bus despite treating your side of the argument with the respect it deserved. Way to go. Your mom must be proud.

Originally Posted by ReinWeiss

That supposing the two of them, given different circumstances, could reasonably end up together is what most KyoSaya fans believe.

Yes, they came down with a bad case of the dead before it could happen, but so what?

This made me spit my drink laughing. +1 KyoSaya fandom, you've convinced me. <3

Also, yea, Japanese person confirming Rein here. Shoujo-Ai is pedophilia, ditto Shonen-Ai. Do not use them, oh my god.

[ReinWeiss]

Lets not forget that the final Clara Doll, Ai, has yet to arrive.

I think there is a bit too much quibbling over "Romantic" love here. Homura's love for Madoka is pretty much all encompasing, to say its not romantic in some form is oddly limiting. Again, if a male character had Homura's role, they would certainly be considered to have 'romantic' interest in the Madoka counterpart.

As for Kyouko and Sayaka, again as I said, there is not a romantic relationship in the show for obvious reasons of one or both of them being dead by the time its a possibility. But then we have Rebellion. Sayaka explicitly says to Kyouko that the one thing she regretted was leaving Kyouko behind. While that, in and of itself, does not say that there is a "romance" between them, but it certainly opens the door. Again, imagine it was a male/female instead of female/female pair. That would certainly imply romantic possibilities to the average viewer.

You don't have to ship these pairs. Hell, you can even do something really ridiculous and ship HomuSaya (*vomits*), but just denying that its even a possibility, when its very clear subtext (and subtext does not mean "you just imagined it. Its an actual thing that exists in stories and is put there for a reason) in the show/movie, and basically beaten over our heads in extra material.

[TheSix]

Just to clarify, what do you mean specifically by "all-encompassing"? Homura's love for Madoka is certainly a defining element of her character, and motivates the vast majority of her actions throughout the series, but there's no indication of said love being representative of all possible kinds.

Also, I have nothing against people who interpret the relationships shown in the series as romantic, nor do I consider that a completely invalid view of them. I take no problem with people seeing that as part of the series. However, as somebody who interprets the examples raised above and the other elements of the relationships they compose as close friendship rather than anything romantic (for pretty much the reasons Aura previously outlined), sees no reason to not do so, and considers that interpretation to fit the themes of the series more, what I do take problem with is people claiming it as "effectively official" as was done in this thread: That the romantic interpretation is correct. I realize that you yourself may not be saying that, but that was what I was replying to and arguing against.

Also, I will restate that my judgment in this would have been the same if either member of either pair were male. You can disbelieve me on that, and you'd have every right to seeing as there would be no fair way to test it, but I'll continue to insist that in that sense my conclusion has no bias.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by TheSix

what I do take problem with is people claiming it as "effectively official" as was done in this thread

Would "officially sanctioned" have been a better term to use?
What I take offense to is people trying to claim that the pairings in this series, particularly KyouSaya, are meant to be taken "ironically", that they are "poking fun at fans", in order to fuel the ridiculous notion that the creatives behind this series are somehow not otaku themselves, despite, you know, writing for eroge, directing anime about loli vampires, or writing yuri fanfiction.

What's so wrong about the idea that the pandering in Madoka is meant to be taken seriously? Is fan-pandering inherently bad, when it's the fans that allowed for the series to become so big in the first place?