Jump to content

Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Personal pages for Matthew Erickson and others?

Does anybody else think there should be a personal page for Matthew Erickson and some of the other English voice actors introduced by this series, specifically Maryke Hendrikse, Lalainia Lindbjerg, and Brent Miller.

<<Plot speculations removed>>

<<text deleted, see history if interested>>

  • What does this have to do with this article? The talk page is not a discussion forum for plot speculation.--Lord Shitzu 22:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • (...) let me remind you This is NOT a place for plot speculation ! If anything it should be used as a place to dicuss changes of the show wiki article and all related ones. FearTheReaper 12:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, take plot speculations to forums of fansites. -- towo 10:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

<<inappropriate and unrelated comment removed>>

Wikipedia naming standards

I was under the impression that a policy was decided a while back in regards to naming conventions of people/characters in foreign media, where the English name would be followed in parentheses by the original name (in hiragana, katakana, or kanji whichever it is usually written in) as well as a literal transliteration. Can someone confirm or deny? The vast majority of anime pages seem to follow this standard, and I will look into the details of the aforementioned policy myself, but if anyone knows offhand or a decision has been reached in regards to this article in the past to NOT follow this standard, let me know. Otherwise I will begin adding the Japanese names and transliterations soon.--Lord Shitzu 22:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be case for titles - I'm not sure about the cast list, though. For the sake of completeness, I think that nobody will lynch you for adding Kanji and transliterations. --towo 10:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with this. Since the whole episode list is translation anyway (There's like 3-4 ways translating it), I think adding the Katakana, Hiragana, Kanji, Furigana, etc. would help.--129.116.25.233 01:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Probable English casts

I'm going to remove the list of speculations about the cast for exactly that reason - they are speculations. Encyclopedias are about facts, so I dare anyone to challenge me to include official sources - what some fan groups say, or deducing it from SEED, is not a valid source. -- towo 10:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Good Point, we should really wait to post the English list until we know for sure FearTheReaper 11:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's already out though. I'm confused that Stellar's English voice was credited to Lalainia Lindbjerg. I thought Kelly Sheridan was suppose to be in the role. Can aanyone help me here? 70.68.46.180 03:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Political commentary?

It seems to me the show's plot more or less mirrors real-world events concerning the western world. Spoilers, obviously: we start with an uneasy peace. Then the Atlantic Federation (America) gets hit with a tragic terrorist attack. Subsequent foreign aid and support is overwhelming, but the Federation starts making unreasonable demands for justice. When these demands are not met, they declare war. They strong-arm neutral countries into an alliance, and internal dissent is put down. Troughout, the Federation is portrayed as a cold-blooded aggressor that indiscriminately targets both civilians and military, while the other side (PLANT) fights only in self-defense, constantly pleads for peace and often uses non-lethal tactics in battle. This is in stark contrast to the previous series, which demonized both sides and showed them committing atrocities in equal measure. I'd mention this in the article, but I'm not sure what the "official" stance is on the whole thing. Anybody else? Tronno 03:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

With the events of the most recents episodes, the view of PLANT as an innocent country is greatly reduced. Additionally, seeing any of these relations is rather speculative, and without any firm stance from some side, it alas can't be included. --towo 10:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Even though the beginning of the storyline have some parallelism to recent events, I'm for sure the ending shift so much that it's hard to say it's 100% based on real events.--129.116.25.233 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that you migiht not have watched the entire series before coming to this opinion. PLANT is shown to have been relying on the demonization of the EA to fuel its own agenda, eventually using the same forbidden weapons of mass destruction that their enemies did. So, no, the events are probably NOT based on real life events, if you bothered to watch the rest. --Anonymous 07:33, 24 October 2005
I heard from Fukuda in an interview that he was influenced by the Iraq and Israeli-Palesitnian conflicts in doing Destiny. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.68.46.180 (talk • contribs) .
Well the USA aren't ruled by a homosexual looking terrorist leader with a arabian name aren't they? Anyway its quite right that the EA represents America it was in during that time to demonize the USA. However personaly i think the EA was more shown as the privat army of a James Bond villian rather then a dangerous military. Bascily the EA as a whole is a weak character in the series presenting lots of usual stereotpyes.

trilogy?

"Gundam SEED Destiny is the second series in the Cosmic Era trilogy." where did you find this, in {aeug.blogspot.com/} they said the next Gundam will be a new AU series. Croatnik

postponed episode

Was there ever a postponed episode?,

No there was not. FearTheReaper 13:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize this is a little late, but one early episode (I forget which) was actually postponed because of earthquakes in Japan. --Flamealchemist 20:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't postponed, it was interrupted by a news report for a bit and the rest of the episode was continued along with a scroll bar detailing news regarding the quake. The episode was later re-aired uninterrupted. --71.12.221.109 18:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About Old and New Character Preference

It was stated while fan-sites prefer old characther while sales and rating show otherwise. I found it is not true, at least this month (September to October 2005). I have checked several Japanese Anime Magazines and I found that old characther is more popular. Its popularity even surpass many characthers of Full Metal Alchemist which supposedly more popular in Japan. Give an example, in Animage, the popular vote comes to 3 characthers from old characthers of Gundam SEED. They are Kira Yamato, Athrun Zara, and Cagalli Yura Atha. They positioned 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively in Animage with Kira got twice Athrun's vote. FYK, the 4th is Edward. Shinn is on 7th. Other magazines may varies, but still old characther is more popular.

I do not know in other region or in another magazines which I don't read. However, I think it is not useful to take this any longer, so I decided to remove that part. Moreover, as I previously said, it varies from region to region.

About sales, I heard that sales of ALL merchandise in GSD is already poor (it is Bandai's statement several months ago, they said that it is a factor that may prevent a new sequel, if any). If I remember correctly, at that time even Destiny, SF, and IJ still didn't enter show. I do not know about it, now. As in fansite, many hate the SF's Dragoon and Gold Joints. I was one of them until, I saw it in the show. I currently think they are good enough, as many people who say "hate" before. I don't know if any changes of sales since that. Can anyone give me some good references said that? As the sales can change, too. Not to mention sudden high rating of GSD on TV at episode 49 (7%+).

Anyway, please Correct Me If I am Wrong, cheers. (^^)

202.153.241.43 06:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What I meant to imply was that while fans who post online comments and read anime magazines preferred the older characters, ratings data suggested that casual or mainstream viewers (those who wouldn't read or vote in said publications) preferred the newer characters and mecha. I don't have exact data on hand, but the highest ratings spikes tended to involve Gilbert, Shinn, Jona, or the Destiny Gundam. (It's debut brought one of the biggest ratings spikes, I believe.) And while Destiny merchandise did sell poorly compared to that from the original SEED, the Destiny Gundam model sold considerably well compared to the rest. Hope that helps! -- Jbetteridge 06:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I think the Destiny Gundam 1/100 model was the one of the best-selling toys of the year in Japan. 68.47.234.131 02:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Throughout October and November, I notice that old characthers of Gundam SEED still very popular in Japan, especially Kira and Athrun who dominate first and second position. 202.153.241.43 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the distinction between magazine polls and merchandise sales. Kira and Athrun's popularity in the polls has not translated into strong sales of Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice model kits. 68.47.234.131 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Among Japanese fans as well as official website, Strike Freedom is officially the favored Gundam design in the SEED series , despite constantly losing in sales of original design kit to Destiny Gundam kit. IMHO, I don't think there is a "direct" relation between favourite characthers and best seller mecha.202.154.30.27 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiaki Morosawa

  • I read the criticism page in interest since GSD is my favorite iteration of the Gundam metaverse. A lot of the complaints were valid, but the paragraph regarding Chiaki Morosawa seemed somewhat offensive. If you give someone creative control, that implies that you trust them with your intellectual property. If I had it my way, the whole criticism section would be removed since it can never meet the NPOV standard, but in the interests of debate, I only removed that paragraph. Danny Lilithborne 13:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with you. If someone forced you to work with you (example: your sponsor forced you to work with his/her relative), is that implies you can trust him/her (the relative of your sponsor)? Anyway Correct Me If I am wrong. It is only my opinion. 152.118.24.10 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Who said that Fukada was forced to work with his wife? Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd personally argue that it should be mostly left. When even staff members on the show complain, I think that makes a subject important enough to be mentioned. Any mindless bashing of Morosawa should be removed but fair criticism about a situation where she as the head writer seems to have caused many problems by submitting scripts past deadline, changing plot points on the fly, etc should be kept. Stating you've removed it alongside the information that the show is your favourite Gundam series only makes the decision look biased. 80.1.88.74 00:43, 23 December 2005
  • I think 152.118.24.10 didn't said about Fukuda was forced to work with his wife. I think he/she pointed about Fukuda's subordinate who "may be" forced to work with Morosowa because of her relation with Fukada. I think it is also mentioned in a staff's blog. IMHO, I think the Morosowa section should be left as is, as it is fair enough, I think personally. 202.154.30.27 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless proper interviews are cited, the only thing that should remain are the Animation Director's comments about her. Leave the conjecture to yourselves.

Is there any evidence the Animation Director made any such comments? I'm at least able to find cached Google pages of excerpts of an alleged fan translation the alleged Morosawa interview along with dead links to the fan translations. I can't find that much 'information' for the Animation Director comments.

I've removed the majority of the external links as Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Please do not add the links back. --nihon 03:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

  • The "Criticism" section is far too large, and by definition cannot meet NPOV standards. Danny Lilithborne 21:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Please specify where are the NPOV problems. 152.118.24.10 07:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The whole idea of having a section specifically about fan quibbles on the series can't work, as it can never be objective. In my opinion, the whole section should be removed. Danny Lilithborne 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I am rather confused. I believe that the one giving criticism is the viewers/fan, don't they? And since when they can't be objective? If that apply, both of us also can't be objective since you have stated that you are a fan in other section and I am consider myself a fan. Sorry, but I am really confused.... 152.118.24.10 08:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
          • This is an encyclopedia. Real information should be the basis of any article, and not fan opinion. I really don't see what's hard to understand about this. Danny Lilithborne 09:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Hmm, I do understand IF you say fan "Opinion". I appreciate your opinion, however, I am still disagree. I think the section is explanation about the "fact that series is complained by fan" and "facts which are complained by fan" or simply said "it is facts that fan complaining this and that in the series". It is real that many fan complain and it is real that complains exist. Ok. It is in my opinion. Thanks for attention. 152.118.24.10 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree with Danny Lilithborne. You can show what the fans are complaining about with proofs, but not just state that "some fans don't like this" or "some fans thinks that". Arguments like those are not valid, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. The article should be with solid infomations, not something that's passed along from internet gossips.142.104.250.115 06:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
                • I will cite Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. I also will cite: " It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says. ". IMHO, the section already meet those points. Draconins 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, it is certainly possible to have an unbiased "Criticism" section for any wikipedia article, albeit perhaps with significant added difficulty in certain articles. After all, at least in theory, any "disgruntled fanboy" could potentially edit this entire article to simply read "Gundam SEED Destiny sucks, and only Losers watch it." A more talented saboteur might even be able to somewhat obfuscate the skewing of opinions in that direction. All that said, though, I suppose the question to ask is whether or not the Criticism section AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS constitutes a breach in NPOV. As a suggestion as to how to perhaps make it at least MORE neutral, I think that citing a few sources to back up some of the statements made would be a step in the right direction. Although complete citations may not be feasible for some parts of the Criticism section, I think that the "interview" mentioned should be sourced, cited, and/or otherwise linked to. Without evidence to back up that the woman said those things, well, them's pretty libelous statements right there.--Althor Enchantor 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • All the talent at Wikipedia, and only one person gets my viewpoint? Come on. Danny Lilithborne 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Danny. Isn't the purpose of this site to be an encyclopedia? Not a place for critics to voice their opinions. Artein 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, encyclopedia is not place for voicing opinion. However, if there are facts about a significant opinion or critics about a topic, IMHO, it is possible to include them in encyclopedia, as long they are treated as facts. And this sentence: Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny has been criticized by a number of people .... in the article, IMHO again, is already show that there are facts, though as Althor Enchantor it may need some reference. I am currently looking such reference, which is not Japanese (sources such as Kabashima's report and interview of Morosowa, I only found in Japanese). Anyway should we request assistance to solve this problem, as I see there are two significant opinions which hardly meet on this matter in request for assistance.  ?Draconins 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The entire 'Criticism' section of this does not stand up to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If fan quibbling for a certain series is to be tolerated for this article, we might as well setup 'Criticism' sections for just about every piece of foreign media (would 'Non-American' be more politically correct?) featured on Wiki.
  • I agree that it's far too large. At this point, the "Criticism" section resembles more a review ("the series ultimately squandered its potential") than a list of criticisms. Many of the complaints stem from the fact that the series was supposedly changed due to fan pressure and demand. Wouldn't it be logical to assume, then, that the series has far more fans than detractors? So many fans, in fact, that they were able to affect the direction of the series itself? Obviously the fanbase, while almost entirely Japanese, is much larger than the detractors, who seem to be primarily English-speaking. Newtype USA has Destiny listed as the #1 show among readers, with its cast dominating the "Favorite Character" polls. The series hasn't even aired on English-language television yet, where it would most likely find a wider, and more accepting, audience. I would go so far as to say that the majority of the criticisms listed there are the opinion of a relatively small, yet vocal, group of fansub fans who congregate on a small number of forums. With so many complaints, it would be an arduous task indeed to find out exactly how many are widely-held, and how many are simply nitpicks held by seperate individuals. At any rate, an encyclopedia article is not a soapbox to vent your frustrations. --Marcg106 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is to truncate the entire section into a point-form list briefly listing only the most substantial and widespread complaints about the series. But as much as I'd like to do that myself, I don't think I could bare actually wading through that monstrosity to actually find the valid complaints. Jbetteridge 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've made a significant change to this page, including rewriting the criticism and trivia sections to suggestions described above. Hope you enjoy it, and please make any necessary changes; I think I made a few mistakes on internal links. If approved of, the cleanup tag can be removed. --Flamealchemist 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You want to see a NPOV? Why not watch the later half of the series and tell me the staff kept a NPOV on ZAFT battleing the Three Ship Alliance. We have a right to be critical because it's right there in the show!

Removal of Criticism section

  • It was bloated, it informed of nothing other than certain people's criticisms, and it ultimately was a backdoor way of entering fan opinion into what should be an encyclopedia that maintains a neutral point of view. I deleted the Criticism section. I'll revert it over and over if I have to while I am able to use a computer with an Internet connection. You can go ahead and ask a moderator to ban me from Wikipedia if you feel that the Criticism section is that important to you. But I won't tolerate it any further. This is completely ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 12:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's one way to solve the problem, hehe. I would also suggest a heavy condensation, re-writing, or outright deletion of the "Trivia" section, as it stands now. Obviously, there's a couple of similarities between Destiny and Zeta, but comparing every single element is asinine. Also, the "character voice comparison" list is rather irrelevant. --Marcg106 04:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Riiiiiiight, because quashing the other point of view is REAL neutral. Wikipedia should be providing a well rounded viewpoint, not a biased one. The PROPER way would be to introduce a "Praises" section or something similar. --Leyviur 10:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem with the Criticism section is that fans kept adding their own viewpoints until the whole thing became bloated. If it's going to be there at all, it should be three paragraphs at most in my opinion. And please don't tell me critiques about the mobile suit designs are worth having on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 06:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Then delete the unnecessary parts instead of taking it out outright. If you take it out completely, that's biased in of itself and points to possible devotion to a series such that you can't take any criticisms against it at all. Leyviur 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
            • The problem is that in my eyes, all the parts are unnecessary. A mediation is required. Danny Lilithborne 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
              • One thing I'd like to mention, though, is that the page in other languages on Wikipedia DO explore the things for which the series is criticized. They arn't under the boldhead "Criticism", but they are definately there, either incorporated into the rest of the article or each parameter having a whole section all for its own (In the Japanese one, for instance, it has a "Objects of discussion", which has pretty much all of the things seen in this criticism section inside it). Hathen 23:38 11 February 2006 (PST)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-09 Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny see my response. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 21:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding media like TV shows, movies, and music, there's only two types of criticism that should appear on Wikipedia: criticisms from noted critics, like many popular film articles contain. They also contain critical praise, to balance it out. The only other criticism that should appear is for something which is notable for being EXCEPTIONALLY critically panned. Like, say, Ishtar (film) or Plan 9 From Outer Space. Gundam SEED Destiny is one of the most popular shows in Japan since the first Gundam SEED. The characters top the fan-favorite lists. There's tons of model kits being produced. Therefore, it is NOT known for being a critical failure. Destiny has not aired in North America yet, and therefore has not recieved wide enough exposure to form any sort of wide-spread criticism from the public. The entirety of the criticism so far has been generated from a handful of english-language message boards, and these are undoubtedly the editors who added the criticism section in the first place. And fanboys don't exactly have a reputation as fair reviewers. As Danny Lilithborne has said, it is nothing but a backdoor to allow any fan accusation in. Adding a "defense of criticism" section would only acknowledge the criticism's section's right to exist, which should not happen. It would undoubtedly end up as one big argument back and forth, completely unworthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. --Marcg106 06:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am removing the criticism section until sources are found, all of you see WP:CITE. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, what a surprise... common sense prevailed. On the Internet. steamsteamlol.ytmnd.com I never thought that could happen. Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It is easier to use mediation when going dispute. ^_^ Though I disagree with some extends, if it feels better for most, I will follow them. Just stop the revert war (which almost 3rvv)... I am still looking for citation though... ^_^ Draconins 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Gundam SEED Destiny is almost certainly the most controversial installment of the entire Gundam franchise. In a gerne-defining franchise that's 27 years old and includes 12 TV series, 14 movies, 7 OVAs, and at least a dozen manga series, that's pretty significant. The criticism is so widespread that even members of the production crew have come out to criticize the director and head writer for their handling of the series. Not only is deleting all reference to this controversy the antithesis of common sense, it also flies in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Pretending that widespread criticism doesn't exist is POV.
Oh, and about that "ton of model kits"? They're selling poorly. Kits of Strike Freedom, the mobile suit Bandai's been promoting the most, are having their prices slashed to less than half the original price bbs1.greedland.net/attachments/56/2006/02/04/974684.jpg because stores can't sell them. Gundam Seed Destiny might've been a ratings success (though a mild one - the original Seed and Fullmetal Alchemist, in the same timeslot, did better), but it's a merchandising failure. Seeing as Gundam is such a heavily merchandising-based franchise, that's not a good thing. 68.47.234.131 15:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. We're not pretending that widespread criticism doesn't exist. We just refuse to acknowledge it, since criticism by definition does not constitute a neutral point of view. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Refusing to acknowledge a widespread controversy also by definition isn't neutral. There's certainly nothing NPOV about quashing information because you don't like it. 68.47.234.131 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • This is going to boil down to a "chicken or egg" debate, and I think that most objective people would agree that the Criticism section doesn't have a place on the encyclopedia. You obviously have a vested interest in it being there. I don't care what the reason is, but you better rethink your priorities. Just a thought. Danny Lilithborne 08:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It is alright to include the criticism again but please look for and give the source. It is as Jaranda said. Put back the critics that have source and don't forget to include citation, see WP:CITE.... Currently I am looking for english source, and I haven't found it yet. Anyway, I had previously said, for me, as long as treated as facts, it is encylopaedic. And for you all who write here please put your sign in your post by inserting four tildes... Draconins 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a small paragraph to summarize the whole critism section is justified. See G Gundam and Macross 7. Suredeath 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not only that, look for criticism in wikipedia or other encylopedia and you find a lot of them, even in featured article. As long it presented as fact, it is ok. But please include citation, as there was a dispute caused by this problem.Draconins 05:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if you remove the Criticism section, there at least deserves to be a Controversy setion, for Destiny is a highly controversial series. Whether it's the sudden shift in hero focus or the accusations of directorial bias (such as interviews in which Fukada said that Orb represented his idealized version of Japan, and alternately declared the Alliance and Durandal's ZAFT as representative of George W. Bush's America), this series has a lot of important history and background information that cannot simply be divorced from the series. Besides, the whole damn SERIES is biased - look at all the people who repeatedly go into Strike Freedom's profile and declare that it's the strongest Gundam ever, that its "Wings of Light" are better than Destiny's, and so forth. Ignoring an arguement does not cause it to go away; it still happens even if you plug your ears and close your eyes. The best thing to do in this situation would be to instate a Controversy section containing perhaps a three-paragraph summary of the old Criticism section, and tightly regulating it against bias. AmuroNT1 08:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless the series is pointing guns at people's heads and making them spout gibberish over which Gundam is teh bestest, that's a moot point. Not that there hasn't been plenty of bias on both sides, regardless of whichever one's louder. Most of Destiny's "controversy" seems to be A) backstage production drama brought into public scrutiny (and read too deeply into) several orders of magnitude more often than mormal, and B) having two popular main characters at odds, giving the masses of the Interweb something to argue over. Speaking of which, I like how the "media and fanbase" pan the writer for "caving into fan demand." If Wiki's supposedly going for NPOV, this article needs serious help, and not just the Criticism section. --71.65.235.57 11:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What I don't understand is why some of you feel the need to remove the Criticism section altogether. If you didn't notice, that in itself is a bias because you're suppressing the opinions of one side. Don't get me wrong, I thought the section was overly large, too. Another thing is the fact that so many other pages have a criticism section, and it seems like all of a sudden this page can't have one? Sounds like a fanboy double standard to me. And some things are based off the plot itself and you don't really need evidence for it (AKA Kira becoming a more prominent main character), because it'd be known by anyone who watched the show. If you want us to actually show the blog of the criticizing of Morosawa, it'd probably be in Japanese, and that wouldn't be a lot of help on the English page, would it? Hathen 06:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I generally only watch the pages of TV shows I like, and this is the only one with a criticism section. Mentionining the criticism is fine if the criticism is notable, and in this case, it's undeniable that it is; to devote an entire section to the various snipes of fans against the show is introducing POV into the affair and is the very essence of fanboyism. Danny Lilithborne 07:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You forgot the part where you are a stupid fanboy and only introduced this debate because you are undenyably a Gundam SEED Destiny fanboy and you can't take any criticism against the series. Sounds like hypocrisy to me. 207.166.7.200 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, a personal attack. You really don't have anything left to defend yourself with, do you, anony? Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So he's a fanboy, that's great, everyone has their own preferences anyways. Eitherway, I took a look at the section and I think it's fine now. I'm on the opposite side of Danny but I would've agreed on deleting the section due to it being bloated (Which I haven't seen since I haven't been watching the page). But at the same time I would've write up a new one on the specific details rather than just erasing it all together. I remember when I deleted some huge crap about Shuffle, forgot which one it was on. But it's fine now and I think we should keep it at that state since it's focused on crucial items.
      • I'm against removing it altogether. Though, even now, I still think the criticism section is still way too large. Suredeath 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • You call that large? Anyways it covers all the stuff that has been posted such as those articles and interviews. I think it's fine. If more interviews like that are posted then well...it's added on then.
      • Well I'm in opposite with Danny too, but see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-09 Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Ugh... but please don't set personal attack or edit/revert war here..... And don't forget to sign your comment with the four tildes... Draconins 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I say if you want to have a criticism section, you should have a praise section as well. Otherwise, it's not a NEUTRAL point of view, is it? It's a pessimistic view. - Anonymous
  • Again...I will cite Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. I also will cite: " It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says. ". Draconins 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a very good reason why the Criticism section is as prevalent as it is: the Series caused more flamewars on most Gundam Forums than any other Series prior: in fact, some of them are still ongoing. Everything Posted in there that could be viewed as opinion I have seen time and time again in those discussions. And they're not presented as factual or applying to the whole article anyway, so Danny should just stop being a fanboy and accept that his Series is considerably less-than-perfect. (unsigned comment by 203.158.60.186)
    • I haven't posted here in a long time, so your statement is already irrelevant. But just for the record, I have acknowledged in repeated discussions the self-evident storytelling flaws in Gundam SEED Destiny. It's far from perfect. However, I still believe fan criticism is irrelevant on a page that claims to be encyclopedic. If I were an anime fan (which I do not consider myself to be), I would have raised this discussion on every single page with a "Criticism" section, regardless of whether I liked the series or not. Danny Lilithborne 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me lob a question then, if we should be neutral and give both the pros and cons of every subject? Shouldn't we note the positive influence and actions of Hilter and the Nazis? Some things are abominations and if you're a normal gundam fan, this is one. To be blunt, unless you have a raging Hard-on for Kira Yamato, Lacus Clyne or Mu La Flaga, the series was very bad in the end. I mean there was no character devolopment throughout the series for most of the characters and those returning under the pandering of the fanbase. Guess what Mr. Lilithborne? Destiny is an insult to the Gundam Franchise for it's milking of models, and pandering to the fanboy base screaming "We need more Kira Yamato!" And the fact that people see this is worse than US SD Gundam Force, that's a feat.

Also it's not that we all add our own veiw points, we are all in agreement how some of these things were just stupid and overkill. Like the whole black and white issue with Kira "Jesus" Yamato, "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to smack you down".

  • There were 2 sides to pick from, the problem is, we all know that anyone who went up against Virgin Mary 2.0 would lose. Also the fact with how hypocritical the Clyne faction was, they wanted peace, but they kept a few nuclear reactors and created the most dangerous mobile suits of the war. That's why the writers were blatantly going for a John Cena-esque "this is your hero, AND YOU WILL LIKE IT" approach with the Archangel Smurfs for the last 10 episodes.


I believe that the criticism section should be restored, seeing as GSD is one of the most widely criticised animes that I've ever seen. It realy belongs there. --68.84.45.45 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Political commentary about the CABAL... Okay, I'll grant you that one.
  • Relationships are well developed? What ass are you pulling this out of? Watch the series again and tell me how the relationship between Gilbert Dullindal and Talia Gladys developed? Let alone explain Mu La Flaga and Murrue Ramius since it was mainly "I am Neo, not Mu". As for Shinn, he had some relationships developed but now of them were ever properly done. Let it be the Kamille/Four relationship with him and Stellar, or even Rey, that turned into manipulation and then the turnaround Rey had at the very end?
  • The series was said to be well paced in comparison to the original, with no particularly boring sections.

This worked for the first 10 episodes, then the storyline came to a screetching halt and everyone was stuck in a waiting mode. Sure it got a few boosts but near the end, it was a complete disaster with 2 clip shows in the final 10 episodes after being subjected to 3 others through the series, that's unexceptable under any standards.

Many fans were critical over the fact that Okawara Kunio, after desinging mecha for over a decade, started to recycle designs and dived into Universial Century to get ideas.

Rebut these critical comments of the praise, because yes, the series was succesful, but it had a ratings drop that was significant for where it was placed.

Until then, you just sound like a crony who is being paid off by Bandai


Previous poster here, but forgot the ~ signs. I'm still advocating for the revival of the Critcism/Praise section because those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it. Since we have been given a year of retrospect now, you can see just how bad it is compairied to other works in gundams, it's all the bandwagon fans are starting to see their folley and unless you have a raging hard-on for Mwu, Lacus or Jesus Yamato, it's just plain bad. Tomino made comment during the American Premire of the Zeta Gundam Movies impling it was horrible (but he did not directly state it) Let's look at it from a different veiw, when writing an article on Richard Nixon, do you leave out the the fact that he abused powered and resigned because of it? But by Desinty Wiki, we shouldn't post anything about the watergate break-in because it shows Nixon in a negetive light and then more people will post critizms of Nixon and cause the area to be bloated?

Just a thought 192.234.16.2 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can the Trivia section

It's just transforming into another criticism section, which is especially bad since there's another criticisms section being formed. Besides, the SEED page doesn't have a "Trivia" section, nor does any other Gundam page. Should the GSD page follow the same model? Jbetteridge 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Trivia is fine, as long as it remains trivia and doesn't degenerate into further POV problems, etc. The Cyber Formula info and even some of the Zeta comparisons seem acceptable. The rest is the usual Destiny song and dance. --71.65.235.57 11:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Insert Songs

I made some minor formatting changes to the Insert Song list, and I corrected the translated title of "Shinkai no Kodoku," since the old translation was a translation of the first line of the song (悲しみを教えて...), whereas the song title is "深海の孤独". The translation kinda sucks, so if someone wants to fix it a bit, be my guest. --24.136.161.68 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhm..... Loneliness of the deep sea? 129.78.64.100 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Point of view!

I've reinstated a two-sided praise and criticism section. Some users perhaps need to be reminded that Wikipedia intends to be an unbiased, non-POV encyclopaedia; therefore, using language such as "the fact that" in conjunction with your own opinion is unacceptable. Removing the praise section is, frankly, a complete joke, and if it happens again I promise to continually change it back until the cows come home. I realize that this show has formed some very strong negative opinions, but if you refuse to acknowledge the positive sides of the series it shows a considerable lack of maturity on your part. Please constantly check yourself to be non-POV (to clarify: neutral, without siding with any one opinion) when editing said section. --Flamealchemist 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Happened again, changing back. Please talk on this page to discuss this, whoever's doing this.--Flamealchemist 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do comments on Cagalli keep getting removed? It's fair to say that out of all the returning cast she was changed the most and this has upset alot of fans, especially since interviews with Morosowa give the impression that she decided she didn't like the character and so it's bias on her part. It deserves to be mentioned.--HellCat86 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I probably removed them recently whilst reinstating the praise section, as they seem to be added at the same time that's removed. I agree that they should be there; any links to the interviews? --Flamealchemist 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Praise section is for PRAISE, please stop making it negative. --Flamealchemist 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your praise section is based on the views of a very small minority. Not pointing out this fact is a deliberate misrepresentation. 138.16.6.166 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the views on SEED Destiny is vaired to being almost even. There are groups who enjoy the features, then there are those who hate it. The ones who hate it are far more vocal about it, so it's easy to not see that people who enjoy the changes exist. By trying to play down one side of the argument as being smaller than it should be, your ruining the balance and neutrality of the article itself. User:Leo786

Can you prove that the pro and con GSD groups are about equal in size? As far as I'm concerned, on the Internet the more vocal group is the larger group, unless one can show otherwise. 138.16.6.166 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look around forums relating to Gundam or discussion on the series in general. There actually are quite a notable margin that liked the series, whether it be certain aspects of it or everything, they do not have complete hatred toward the series like many people like to believe. While saying that it's exactly equal is a bit of a misguided guess, saying that a only a very small minority liked the series is quite the understatement. The actual effect of Gundam SEED Destiny extends beyond the net as well, beyond people arguing about it on image and message boards. I'd think that unless you have an actual statistic or proven fact that only a very small margin of the entirety of the fanbase itself like SEED Destiny, it's useless to add that comment of only a small group liking it, as it's not looking at things in a neutral view. Much like nicknames that are used by only a small group of people have no place on the page, although it looks like they were removed already.

That said, I think the praise section should be left in as it appears at the moment. It's not a misrepresentation, but one that has merit to it. However, I do think that the Critisim section is getting a bit too long, and I second the request for someone to compile it neatly into 2 or 3 paragraphs that was stated above.User:Leo786

I think a big problem is that certain people in both sides aren't willing to accept the other side of the argument. You have the pro-Destiny folks running around trying to remove the criticisms with fan created explanations and the anti-Destiny crowd removing the praise to lay deeper into the series. We seriously need to come up with a list that fairly represents both sides of the matter with no bias --HellCat86 04:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to summarize the criticism section, but it's likely that it will just be expanded again. Few more signatures in support and it'll be done. --Flamealchemist 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the following needs mentioning:

  • New cast being changed to villains in order to bring back the original cast
  • Reuse of Zeon MS designs from MSG
  • Cagalli and how she got shunted around
  • The truth about Neo
  • The comments the show staff and fans have made against Morosowa. It seems fair to say alot of the show's problems stem from her.
  • Bias shown in battles (success for Terminal/Orb, the Earth Alliance being reduced to cannon fodder racists who's sole strategy seems to be "Shoot at it!" )

I'm sure the people who enjoyed Destiny can make some suggestions for praise.--HellCat86 09:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

to Leo786: I have to forums discussing Gundam, and what I have seen is mostly criticism. Your statement that a sizable margin liked GSD is untrue, given that you define "like" as in "not having complete hatred," and the fact that people who dislike the show are more likely to stop talking about it than the people who liked it. Discussion of why people watched the show, instead of mentioning its merits, elicited the responses that they watched it only because it was Gundam or because it was like watching a trainwreck. If you want a neutral point of view, tell the truth, not twist it to fit both sides! Some of those praises you mentioned are minority opinions and not balanced by criticisms; for example the recycling of mobile suit designs and that take sides thing at the end. Also, that "love and fight of robots" thing, assuming that it is a webpoll, would not be an accurate reflection and should be removed. 138.16.6.166 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to ask Danny and Flame if they acutally went and watched the series, and then seriously explain to me why there shouldn't be a loopsided amount of critism toward the series unless Bandai is threatening Jimbo with a lawsuit. The reason why it's so hard to find praise is you really have to dig for anything that's really good, and there's not much. Really, I want you to watch this and type with a straight face that we can give equal amount of praise.

Also I'll find the information on the ratings that compaire how Gundam Seed Destiny did to other Gundam Series. It took slowly started to decline and the ending was on par with ZZ Gundam and Gundam X (to be fair, Gundam X was on at 6 in the morning)

I've deleted both the praise and complaint sections and will continue to. Its obvious that no middle ground can be reached here. Just leave all of it out.(65.160.23.99 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Are you crazy? The endings for Double Zeta & Gundam X are vastly superior to that horrid mess that Destiny struggled to churn out at the end: and it seems that you're giving Gundam X a bad rap just because it was cancelled.

Personally, that doesn't sit well with me. Yeah we're going around in circles but I don't think flat out ignoring the issue is the best way to handle it. The most recent edit seemed pretty good to me, aside from people splitting hairs on tiny criticisms. It's the major factors that need mentioning, not personal issues--HellCat86 11:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to get the opinionated rubbish that we see unsigned above, then I'm all for removing it. Clearly, I was wrong about the Gundam franchise having a more intelligent fanbase than most. However, that would be pointless and would harm the encyclopaedia; this series was highly controversial and it did DIVIDE opinion. DIVIDE. There are two sides to this and failing to appreciate either is a shame, as it is an integral part of the legacy of the series. I also thought the most recent edit was very close to getting there, and only needs contracting slightly. Therefore, I'm going to reinstate it, and will continue to do so. --Flamealchemist 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial or not, the page should provide general information about the series, fan reaction is pointless for either side. If somone reads the page and gets the information they were looking for from it then the page has done its job, it SHOULDN'T be a place where people continue to voice their opinions. There are many message boards were people can go to look for opinions. I will leave the article how it is since it won't do any good to delete those portions again, but I will say that I think both the praise and complaints should be gone.(Isamu64 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Controversy and reaction has been mentioned on other articles across Wikipedia. If anything, the major controversy with Destiny is how the show kept switiching gears due to Morosowa. That needs mentioning. I do agree the entry shouldn't become a means for fans to soap box but we can't stick our heads in the sand. It's clear there are some of us willing to provide an accurate and fair report of this issue, so removing it just because it upsets certain viewers is ridiculous. --HellCat86 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So why do we have a lengthy complaint section that explains the Morosawa controversy at the very begining and then continues on and on. Why do we need the complaints about the UC "ripoff" designs or how a certain character should have stayed dead. These are the things that should be left out because not everyone will agree about them. I'm sure there is somone out there that loved the Zakus and Goufs and Doms, and yet their point of view isn't present, and maybe shouldn't be. But then the detractors view shouldn't be here either. The complaints about the writing could have been more neutral as well such as "There was discord within the production staff due to story changes and missed deadlines". Instead we have a group of people that seem to be determined to make sure everyone that researches the show has a negative view of it rather than letting them form their own opinion.(Isamu64 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

There is something that is important to mention: This show is not controversial because it presented controversial themes that divided the fandom into those that agree and those that disagree. This show is controversial because of the fact that it was so poorly produced, with poorly developed characters, too much stock footage, flashbacks and recap episodes, and a story that broke apart after the first dozen because Morosawa slacked off and gave in to fanboy popularity polls. This fact cannot be denied, and an objective unbiased review would mention this. Presenting a factual, negative view of GSD does not prevent prospective viewers from choosing to watch the show and form their own opinions. 138.16.6.166 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fucking signed 138.16.6.166 This is not an argument of opinion, what we present are facts directly from the series, if you want us to use tags for each episode proving this, we would be more that happy to do that 67.173.123.119 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


This is a perfect examply of why Wikipedia will continue to be snuffed as a reliable source of information, since apparently anybody can post anything as long as it is somewhat well written. This page provides an overly negative view of the show and is overall biased towards those who are critical of it. This page fails in its intended purpose. (Isamu64 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

I've edited the complaints section in order to make it more neutral. I left all major complaints and deleted ones that I felt weren't needed.(Isamu64 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

Have some problems with the latest edit:

  • Mecha designs were praised? No mention of the view of many that the UC rehashing was uninspired
  • The treaty complaint is nitpicky and could be replaced with something more substantial. Phantom Pain were allowed to 'break' the treaty because, as Stargazer points out, they're not officially part of the Earth Alliance. Likewise, Lacus and Kira never sat down and signed it. They claim to represent Orb's original ideals but Terminal is it's own faction --HellCat86 06:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-added the complaint about the re-hashed mecha designs. Sorry, I didn't realise there was a comment in the praise section that mentioned this.(Isamu64 06:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

I firmly believe we need to establish a balance of complaints and praises. What is there right now is acceptable, but we should perhaps find ways to further conglomerate complaints into one bullet so that it does not outweight the praises. --71.12.221.109 06:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is the praise section seems to be reaching. The Love and Robot Fight shouldn't really be mentioned in my opinion, since I believe it was only really a fanpoll and alot of other series were mentioned. You don't see me adding the praise it gave to SD Gundam Force to that show's entry for example. There's also a problem with the comments on mecha designs. It seems because they're first mentioned in praise, people keep removing the comments against them in criticism.--HellCat86 09:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Finding a "balance" of complaints and praise is impossible: I have not yet encountered one person who didn't get disappointed by Destiny in one way or another.

  • You may be right. The section is getting whittled down again. Doesn't help that if something is being mentioned in praise people are starting to remove it from the criticism, like mecha designs. The current praises still seem to be reaching. In my opinion, the relationship between Gilbert, Talia and Rey was poorly handled especially in the final episode. I don't really think a character who's loyal to someone for 98% of the show, then changes his allegiance all because of the words of someone who he claims continuous hatred for should be praised. Likewise Gilbert and Talia, which was basically just a series of her looking concerned with his actions then in the final episode declaring ultimate loyalty to him and abandoning her own son. --HellCat86 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think having a 'praise and criticism' section is becoming trouble than it's worth. I think we should simply mention that the series had problems behind the scenes (mainly Fukuda and his Wife not getting work done in time), mention the series was a ratings success but not to the extreme of it's predecessor, and leave it all at that. Let the review sites out there point out everything else. --71.12.221.109 03:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's the best course of action. Thing is, ultimately people will start building it up again. I'll admit I've done similar. Though for the moment if we could create some text that briefly acknowledges the show's faults and put that up I think it'd be good. It's kinda hard for me to stay neutral on this considering in interviews Morosawa is clearly in cloud cuckoo land. --HellCat86 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Put the Praise and Criticism section back because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, plus you have to admit we were keeping a neutral point of veiw since all the material presented was WITHIN the series itself. (Plot Shields, poor character development, shitty writing) Need I go on? Besides we reached a good middle ground with the points and counter-points offered (Not as many as I liked, but it's all about compromise isn't it?)

As HellCat86 stated, you don't give people the right to do something, they will do it anyone just for the sake of violating the rule in place. Just put it in and keep a leash on it so it doesn't become loopsided.

It should be noted that the "treaty complaint" that is was perfectly valid, Phantom Pain while not offical part of the Earth Alliance still worked under some of their jurisdiction. Their relationship is similar to the Titans and the Federation of Universal Century. As for Kira and Lacus, it's hypocritical of them to claim to represent Orb's ideals but then look the other way and start building weapons that even the Earth Alliance or ZAFT would touch. The term "We have to kill them in order to save them" comes to mind with that. Also the fact that Orb under Cagalli's watch continued to feed the Earth Alliance military technology and equipment even after the treaty was signed is the most damning evidence regardless of any loopholes you can make for the first two.

67.173.123.119 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it was becoming loppsided already. We had a good balance a few weeks ago but then things started getting whittled down again. I personally was annoyed that someone kept putting the mecha designs in 'Praise' and as a result like minded people were editing it out of 'Criticism'. That's the problem really. We all have different opinions and some people will respect this more than others. Some will be content to have a general note, others will constantly edit so the article reflects their own personal opinion. I don't doubt sometime in the future it'll likely build up again but for now I think a general note addressing the controversy such as we have is just the best way to go.

As for the treaty thing- I don't think that's fair comparison. Phantom Pain aren't really the Titans equivelant, they're LOGOS/Blue Cosmos private little army who are just allowed to suck resources from the Alliance. They get away on a technicality. In general I'd agree with you on the hypocrisy of Terminal, but the fact remains that they're not one of the parties who signed the treaty.--HellCat86 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this discussion board is some sort of hipocracy here. There's not suppose to be any bias on an internet encyclopedia. But it's like the criticism (as well as the fanperon praising) is purposely downplayed. To deny the idea that anybody who sees the complaints lacks any form curiosity is akin to pre-stating that person's intelligence. Assuming anybody's intelligence is not soppose to happen.

Anybody who knows, know: Shinn Asuka was suppose to be the main character (and lose everything except for Lunamaria in the end). But he and the "new characters" had been pushed aside for the characters from the original Seed series. (And Bandai / Sunrise can bring in revenue.) Also: Seed Destiny was considered "CE's Zeta," and (for being an action-packed mecha war drama) still a show about war.

Mwu not returning as Neo. Kira, Asuran, and Meilyn dying from large blasts. I was expecting that since expectations about this series is so high. But Seed Destiny is a series created by Mutsui Fukuda and Chiaki Morosawa. The same tricks (recycled scenes, recycled episodes, showing favoritism to "popular characters" whilst failing to develop the new ones) had been used herein.

This site's not suppose to be lazy, right? Let's flesh out the main complaints and place them up front. If this gets downplayed, then the person in charge is showing an amount of bias and is as guilty of the "considerable lack of maturity" as everyone else. --Tyrenol 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Criticism and Praise sections, but I just want to iron out one thing. Regardless of what the majority of the people on here may or may not think, things like "the series fell apart after 12 or so episodes" and "the writing turning crappy" and the like are simply opinions themselves. It doesn't matter if 95% of people think this, because even that 5% that doesn't means it isn't fact. Off the internet, I haven't found a single person that hasn't liked DESTINY; it isn't perfect, but that doesn't make people's criticisms fact. It's similar to saying something like "Zeta is the best Gundam series ever;" this isn't a fact, it's simply an opinion. I myself haven't even finished watching Zeta, because I simply can't get into it like I did the original or any of the other series I've watched. And yes, I may be slighty biased to DESTINY, because I didn't see anything that makes me think that it was crap at all; it's simply a TV show, and to be successful, you have to please your friends. Morosawa may of went far sometimes, but saying the show was crap or the writing was crap is only an opinion. --208.104.224.37 05:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For that kind of opinion it is better to say "Many fan get discouraged... " or something like that. It is a fact and can be useful for compromising. Though I am not sure with your "I haven't found a single person that hasn't liked DESTINY". I am one of Gundam fans which never liked Destiny (The anime, especially the story is not good, though many other aspects are good. I like Kira, Lacus, and Strike Freedom design, Akatsuki design, Destiny design, but I don't like the story of Destiny.), I watch along all episodes of Destiny as Gundam fans, hoping for changes in the mid term but it became worse. It is my opinion though. Criticism is an opinion, but we can say the criticism exists...and also fact. See my old previous citation, taken from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." I also will cite: " It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says. " Draconins 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I can agree with that completely. Like I said, I don't really mind the sections themselves, just how the majority of posts I read here and other places state specifically that "DESTINY's writing sucks" and insist on asserting it as fact. And as a last statement, I enjoyed the story of DESTINY; there were weak points and slight inconsistencies (I don't think I'll ever know if I've spelt that word correctly or not), but I am quite glad that the series used the path it did. In my eyes, by the time the switch of main characters took full effect (which seem to be the majority of peoples criticisms), Shinn's story was practically over; all that was left for him to do was follow Durandal's orders and that's not really what I wanted to see (it's kinda like Anakin and Vader really...) --208.104.224.37 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


There was NO reason to add yet another complaint section to the article, leave it be, its fine how it is, if you have complaints about specifics of the show, take it to a message board. There is no reason to keep adding to the compliants over and over, it will end up being a completely biased article. The way it is now is pretty neutral, which is how it should be.

Completley agree. The section was a mess anyway. I'm one of Destiny's loudest critics but a mish mash criticism section on the show's Wiki article won't change anything and adds nothing of worth to the article.--HellCat86 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie confirmed

There was a deleted section of the article discussing a new movie but as there is now confirmation I've put a link into the article from Sunrise stating as such as well as a link leading to Gunota Headlines for those of us who can't read Japanese.--HellCat86 09:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper English Names

With Gundam Official's update, we have comfirmed English spellings for the following characters: Shinn Asuka, Lunamaria Hawke, Rey Za Burrel, Talia Gladys, Arthur Trine, Meyrin Hawke, Malik Yardbirds, Chen Jian Yee, Bart Heim, Gilbert Durandal, Meer Campbell, Neo Roanoke, Sting Oakley, Stella Loussier, Auel Neider, Ian Lee, Lord Djibril, Unato Ema Seiran, Yuna Roma Seiran, and Todaka.

So, are we going to update Stella, Neo, and Yuna's names, since we've used Stellar, Lorrnoke, and Jona Saran around the site? It seems the...proper thing to do...--208.104.224.37 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to the absence of evidence supporting the contrary, I'd go ahead and use the updated English spellings. Now for your obligatory long-winded Tony Myers explanation.
Under a different account name (Toiletduck), I changed the Dullindal references to Durandal a while back and aggressively worked to keep out the former spelling. Also, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that, for example, Neo Roanoke was previously spelled Neo Lorrnoke in the original Japanese version. Anime producers and/or production companies frequently don't make official romanizations for character names, so toy and video game manufacturers and sometimes even the show's animators (I'm going to killed, Ms. Lacus! Captain Quattro, he is a CHAR!) use whichever romanizations they like on packaging and other stuff because there's nothing that says otherwise. Many fans don't realize this (the very same problem dogged Frederik L. Schodt and the first edition of his translation of Yoshiyuki Tomino's Mobile Suit Gundam novels - now fixed in the current edition), so you have people yammering on about "proper" spellings vs. the ones often used in fansubs just because the fansubbing group(s) didn't know any better. In addition, several of the disputed names are references to real places, people, or things. Cases in point: Roanoke, Durandal, and Char Aznable. Tony Myers 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Themes and Reactions

The third paragraph of this sectiom is badly in need of citations. Is there any evidence the Animation Director made any such comments? I'm at least able to find cached Google pages of excerpts of an alleged fan translation the alleged Morosawa interview along with dead links to the fan translations. I can't find that much 'information' for the Animation Director's comments.

Okay, it's been two months. No one has provided citations for either the alleged blog or the alleged interview. They appear to be mere rumors, much like Gundam Seed Eternity and I'm worried the rumors are libelous. Is there any reason the third paragraph shouldn't be deleted? Edward321 23:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd imagine citations have yet to be presented as this article has pretty much slipped under the radar. Go back about 6 months or so and it was the target of frequent edit wars. Now, most people are content with the current state and don't keep tabs on it.--HellCat86 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
So how long do you recommend waiting for someone to provide citation. There's a good chance it will never be provided and the alleged blog and interview may be hoaxes.Edward321 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why are all the mecha articles being deleted? This place used to be where I would look to see all the mecha in Gundam Seed Destiny. Man I'm P.O.Sam ov the blue sand 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See the answer at: Talk:List of Gundam SEED characters#WTF did someone delete like 90% of the pages for Cosmic Era mobile weapons. Draconins 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mobile_Suit_Gundam_SEED_Destiny/Archive_1&oldid=852509973"