Talk:The Big O/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vagueness

I like the show alot. I didn't really get into it at first, but after I started watching for a while, I decided it was right up there with foolie coolie (i'm weird, don't ask). But there's so many things that i don't really understand about the show, i wish they wouldn't be so vague all the time.

-an anonymous fan

The vagueness of the show I think is easilly explained by a certain something concerning the abrupt ending...but its considered conjecture on wikipedia so I don't want to mention it too much. But generally I think it is a great show as well. One of those show's that was supposed to make you think.--Kiyosuki 10:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot Analysis

I thought since this page existed that fans could use it as a forum to communicate about our opinions on plot analysis of Big O. The most confusing episode(s) I would have to say is the last 2 part episode. Ok, so I get that Paradigm City really IS a stage. But what exactly does it have to do with Angel? Gordon Rosewater called her a memory - that desparately wants to be remembered. So is the memory that she is actually a Megadeus? Or is the Megadeus the memory that Gordon is speaking of? She got her wings back - how? Is it because she realized that she actually IS a memory? Why does she control everything? Why does everything disappear when her Megadeus walks by it? Or is the entire series a figment of HER imagination? At the end we see her watching the whole thing on a screen, with a copy of "Metropolis" sitting next to her, except HER name - Angel Rosewater - is at the bottom instead of Gordon Rosewater's. So is the story HER story? The site compares the plot to the movie "Metropolis" and i haven't seen that yet - maybe it would make more sense if I did.

What about the scene where all of the Rogers are being manufactured? They're androids. Was Roger one of them? is HE actually an android, or is he the human the androids were modeled after before the Event? Were they simply created to control the Megadeuses? Like when Beck made (or found) the model of Roger and Big O followed the model right up to the ocean? Is that why every once in a while Roger has a cryptic vision of the Bar Code? And when that happens, who are all those creepy looking children we see for a split second? are they the "tomatoes" that Gordon talks about?

What about R. Dorothy? Was she created to complete Big O, just the way R. Instro was created to complete the yet-another Megadeus (was his name Amadeus?) that was out to destroy Paradigm? If so, then how does that explain how Roger is the Domineus of Big O? or was Alex really right? Is Roger really a false Domineus, and R. Dorothy really the Domineus of Big O? Or is she simply what is needed to complete the "Final Stage?"

Oh, and does anyone know where I can get a CD of the outrageously awesome soundtrack for the series (besides paying over $40 for it at Amazon.com)?

Well i've asked enough and theorized till my brain hurts - but the fact remains - this show RULES.

-NylonOxygen

I have many of the same questions, but the first would have to be, even if it is obvious to some others, what exactly is significant about the event? I understand that the peoples memories were essencially willingly given up, but why? And if Paradigm City is just a stage and Angel is the unknowing overseer then what is outside the box, or is there no world left only memories of the past? I have stayed up many a night trying to watch the reshowing of the episode at 4 or so, but usually I am too drunk or sleepy to get it. I hope, at least, there is some greater meaning behind the premise and that it is not only meant to entertain, but leave you saying "ow, now I understand." Maybe I just want to read to deeply into a show which the hook of the plot is to leave you scratching your head. It is entertiaing though.

-Lungslight

After seeing the last episode, a Shakespeare quote came to mind: "All the world's a play, and the people only actors" or something like that. It's my opinion that the whole series is a really cleverly devised allegory for a play. To be an actor in a play, you have to give up your identity and assume a new one. Angel, the writer of the play who has yet to finish her masterwork, or maybe an actor who hasn't given herself fully to her part, causing some of her old self to bleed into her acting, causes the downfall or the end of the play. If she is indeed the playwrite, then she may be pulling the curtain on the final act of her play. Or I could be completely wrong about everything... If there's a third season we may finally get some closure to our questions.

-Jeebus

Wait a minute. That Shakespear quote was actually in the show. Its in the episode where Roger freaks out and thinks he's just some guy and not the pilot of Big O. He says that line when he sees himself on stage, acting out the time when he first found out about Big O. Ow, now I understand. I think your absolutely right, Jeebus. I think he's just some actor who's playing Roger Smith in a play. In the episode I was just talking about, I think what happened was that Roger momentarilary got back to reality and realised he was just some actor. And I think the robot Rogers that you see in the last episode were toys that were being manufactured because of the success of the play. And that one scene where we see Angel watching the whole thing on a screen, with a copy of "Metropolis" sitting next to her, with her name, Angel Rosewater, at the bottom is suppuosed to show that she was the writer. The copy of "Metropolis" was a script and her name at the bottom showed that she was the writer. Thank Jeebus I finally figured it all out. I've been scratching my head for months trying to figure this thing out. Oh, wait a minute...I still don't get whats the deal with the barcodes and the creepy bald children. Oh well, I was close. My brain hurts now; someone else try to figure this thing out.

The answer to the barcode creepy bald children in my opinion was that they were Gordon Rosewater’s tomatoes or child he created I think and gave them memories of the past(How i don't know it just says it in the show in the episode named RD) . All the children were given a barcode that was theirs to identify them. This is sort of stated in the last like 3 episodes were Angel, Roger, Gordon Rosewater and The women who is the head agent, I can’t remember her name or code number, are in the T.V set of the house. Gordon Rosewater says that Angel and Roger are not one of his beloved tomatoes meaning he did not create them. Also Alex Rosewater doesn’t like it when he finds out that he was a tomato and says “No…I’m not one of those defective tomatoes” or some thing like that. So that what I have interpreted from Big O. Great series.

-Sakashima

OK, just finished watching the whole second season in a row over the past two days. I think I understand the series much better (Big O seems to be more like an OAV than a full-fledged series in that the episodes are pieces of one large plot, rather than individual episodes, so seeing them together helps a lot). Here's the Pluggomatic's analysis of Big O... hold on to your sanity! :-D

There's a bit of foreshadowing involving Angel. In one of the episodes of the second season, Roger says, "Who is my real enemy?!" Immediately, there is a momentary cut to Angel. I thought originally that this meant that the Union was his enemy, but as the story progressed, it was revealed that she represents memories, and in Act 26, Roger says, and I quote, "I most likely erased them of my own free will. I was the one who made that choice. I made it for myself, so I could live in the present and in the future, because I must go on believing there is a me!"

All of this seems to bear out that Angel is.... not exactly the antagonist, just as Roger is not necessarily the protagonist. One of the themes of this series seems to be that good and evil are a function of perspective (indeed, even the Bigs' judgement of the guilt or innocence of a dominus is through the eyes and memories of the Big, "the power of God, created by man"). No, rather, they seem to be opposite and equal characters, right down to Big O and Big Venus being palette-inverted duplicates of one another, both of which make the scenery evaporate as they walk by in Act 26.

Now, as for the questions raised as to the multitudes of Rogers being androids... it seems like it's more likely that Roger is a cyborg. He relates well to both machines and humans (including keeping up the same sort of one-sided dialog with Big O that R. Dorothy does with Leviathan, seeming to imply a sort of wireless communication); he has human emotions; he is quite agile and strong; and he's fond of sleeping late. Although I'm fairly sure the sleeping habits of androids are not touched upon, I'd imagine that a pure android doesn't sleep at all. He also has flesh-colored skin that dimples when pressed with the long, pointy arm of the psycho-killer android whose name escapes me at the moment.

Anybody know what Angel's red balloon means? I'm going to venture a guess that it's representative of Angel, and when it's floating away, it seems to represent memories (represented by Angel) floating away (some thick symbology here!).

Alex Rosewater: He does what is good in his own eyes (and the eyes of Big Fau), but it is evil in the eyes of some others (Roger, for one). This seems to underscore the perspective-based nature of morality (in this series, if not in reality).

R. Dorothy Wainright: She's a toughie. In Act 26, she shows herself to be operational without her memory, and to know exactly what is going on. This seems to represent either that her memory is stored/backed up elsewhere (perhaps inside Big O), or (more likely, in my opinion) that she, like a human, is not ruled by her memories. Dorothy is also seen to have other human characteristics; the mild variation in tempo that her piano teacher tells her is so important, he ability to lie, and her ability to defy human orders (such as from Dastun when she talks to Beck after he kidnapped Roger and refuses to "communicate with the police"). She's called a "work of art" more than once, by more than one character (one of the times, the inspector android says it, and she asks what he is; he responds that he was constructed merely to carry out missions). Finally, she seems to have some degree of emotion and free will; at one point, she mentions how grateful she is that her creator did not endow her with "emotions like that." Also, Angel terms her "perpetually foul-tempered" and later tells her that she knows Dorothy doesn't like her. Dorothy just continues to stare, and does not contradict her.

So, now for the big conclusion: What message I think The Big O was meant to convey.

• Free will does exist. This seems to be "proven" by the removal of the memories and the retention of the same basic nature. To quote Roger, "People are not ruled by their memories!" This sets the stage for the demolition of absolute good and evil. To quote Terry Pratchett, "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
• Good and evil are a function of perspective. The best anyone can do is be true to their own nature and, over the aggregate, absolute good (i.e., that which is good in the eyes of the most people) will be done. This seems to postulate the evolution and natural selection of morality (see Memetics).
• People are, at their core, spiritual creatures. This seems to be borne out by the multitudes that gather in the church to sing for their salvation, despite the (implied) destruction of all holy books.
• Indeed, religion is a creation of man, inspired by his spiritual nature. This doesn't make it less valid; perhaps even more so. In a way, this is what many religions (Christianity being one) believe in anyway; the divine inspiration of the Biblical authors.
• Capability comes from belief in oneself. In Roger the Wanderer, Roger loses his conviction and is lost temporarily. He loses everything, even the world he was once part of. He comes to the conclusion that memories are not everything, and that as long as Dorothy calls him Roger Smith, that's good enough for him.

That's it. I'm anxious to see this picked apart, so have at it, everyone. It's so easy to read so much into a story with this much symbolism and ambiguousness, and it's hard to know when you've uncovered the real meanings or when you've just fallen too far down the rabbit-hole.

--pluggo 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

by Icehole

I don't in any way claim to be an expert on Japanese culture or history, but maybe the overarching theme of Big O is the cataclism of losing WWII. Hear me out.

The series begins with Roger explaining a city of forgetfullness. I think this refers to the loss of Empirial rule and imposition of Western economy and democracy by MacArthur (Rosewater). Among other scenes, there's the open with the stopped clock -emblematic of nuclear blasts. You are shown flashbacks of broke-memory visons; mechanized attacks by land, sea and air, the constant rebuilding of utterly destroyed infrastructure, a civil defense dwarfed by the invinceable megadeuces (occupation), unrecognized foreigners, etc. and a rising red balloon (neunundneunzig luftbalon -Nena).

The pursuit of memories might be the effort to recall real Japanese heritage -albeit ironically and most forcefully called for by an enigmatic person renamed Shwarzwald (german)after the big 'event'. Roger seems to be most accepting of his amnesia. His personal independence and free will allow him to 'come to terms' with his fate, while the rest sruggle internally and with each other to find peace with their feelings of rootlessness. That and Roger gets access to the best of the 'forgotten' technology. Then literally below everthing ther seems to be answers to questions to terrible to ask. Perhaps,"who are we now?"

Please accept my apologies for all the plot points and metaphors that are horribly scraped over by thiis anaysis. It's not fully thought out, and I'm omitting better examples in my haste. I just latched onto this theory in an efort to make sense of the show, and have been plugging plot elements into it as I keap watching the re-runs over and over and over...

no side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icehole (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Am I the only one that feels like the ending to season two was tacked on in a ridiculous manner? Before the last couple episodes there are references to a "play" but there's a much more compelling story about what memories really mean and the war with the Union. I think it was terrible for the creators to make everything into a "play," meaning anything can happen and ultimately none of it matters.

Have not seen the ending yet, but references to plays could also be seen as questioning whether the characters are being their true selves or "putting on a show" for other people. Or something. There's all kinds of other places you could go with play metaphors, you know. But then, this is me who hasn't seen the episode, so take that with a sizable grain of salt. :P Runa27 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was just sort of tacked on, because the creators wanted to do a 3rd season, but couldn't get the funding. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that people are reading into what the nature of Paradigm City and "The Event" were, and even moreso into the theme of the series. From the surreal finale and (currently) unexplained nature of the stage equipment, it seems as though the nature of this was meant to be largely subjective and open to interpretation. The hypothesis that, from how I interpreted it, seemed to say Roger was 'literally' an actor and that the beginning of Episode 14 was "real life" seems a bit choppy, although there was a big o comic book in his "dream", no one seemed to recognise him and he was homeless, which would seem odd if he were an actor in a well known "show within a show". Personally it seemed more like an example of the "am I a man dreaming he is a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he is a man" metaphor, or possibly him seeing what he would have been if the Event did not happen. Secondly, in regards to the theory that the Roger androids were toys being produced from the Big O in Roger's "dream world" seems largely unlikely as; 1) they seemed much to intricate to be models, and 2) Roger showed a fear through most of the series about being a "tomato", or clone of another person, as he thought that would remove his identity, and the robots being mass produced seemed to symbolize the idea that Roger was just a nameless drone (personally, the nature of that scene seemed to fall into the less literal category). Although the figurative nature of the citizens of Paradigm as "actors" could be called into question by the finale, which greatly blurred the lines between ideas and reality in the series, the actor symbolism used throghout the series was largely inferred to be metaphorical throghout most of the series. (Possibly although this is just my opinion and should not be taken as an explaination for the series, meant to symbolize that the social identities people create for themselves are merely "roles in a play".) Also, several of Pluggo's comments seemed to be reading in a bit as well. Although I can see where he is coming from on the ideas that religion is a product of man rather than divine (the power of God given to Man) as well as that capacity comes from faith in oneself (which seemed to be one of Roger's major beliefs), the ideas that "morality is an artiicial and ultimately subjective notion" as well as that no one in Paradigm has free will do not seem to be perticularly inferred in the series, as Roger seems thoroughly convinced that he has free will throughout the series, and the "fate vs. free will" theme only came up once (as I recollect) when Roger met with the killer android Red Destiny, and the conflict there seemed to be "Man determining his destiny vs. supernatural beings dictating Man's fate" (which fits well with the apperen atheism of the series) rather then "Free will vs. determinism". In regards to moral relativism, where most of the characters certainly seemed to belive that they themselves were morally justified in what they were doing, that seemed to be there to create three dimensional characters as well as add an element of realism, and where certain characters were definately shown to be morally ambiguios (sp?) by most standards (such as Schwarzwald, who was willing to harm the citizens of paradigm city, but in an attempt to enlighten them) this does not seem to remove the concept of morality in its entirely from the series. If a series were to try to promote that idea, it seems as though it would nt only show moral ambiguity on all sides of a conflict, but also depict both sides as truly having every reason to believe what they are doing was right, despite the fact that this coud not be true of two contridicting ideologies at the same time. Big O does not seem to attempt to make the audence simpathize with both sides of the conflict, and in doing so, infer that there is no way to develop an objective system of morality, for instance, where Alex Rosewater did truly seem to believe that he was justified in what he was doing, he did exhibit enough stereotypical "bad guy" traits as not to earn the audence's sympathy. Secondly, the character of Alan Gabriel seemed to be portrayed as willingly depraved and amoral. Also, I would like to know by what logic the loss of memories implies a loss of freewill and moral objectivity, I am not trying infer that this theory is unfounded, I just want to know what the basis is. 66.24.229.233 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I truly do not wish to sound like I am trying to interpret Big O as propogating my own views, I simply want to point out the difference between noticing subtle themes in a series and writing one's own opinions into it as "themes". Where I feel Big O is an excellent series, I do disagree with certain opinions the series infers (specifically that people can survive without memory), I nonetheless admit that the series does infer those themes, and respect the writers of series for being able to provide an intelligant interpretation of the idea. Likewise, if I hold on opinion on an issue, I don't try to interpret a work of fiction to have that idea as a theme in its writing. And lastly, just to be clear, I am not accusing anyone of deliberately reading into this series, I am just trying to make a distinction beteen picking up on subtleties and imposing ideas onto a work of fiction that are not in fact present. Otherwise you get people convincing themselves that the theme of Batman Begins is to follow the writings of Ayn Rand.66.24.229.233 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Angel

My friend and I were just discussing this and we believe Angel could be the true author of Gordan's book as well as the events that take place on Paradigm City Stage. Just wondering what everybody else thinks about that.--Frisko 22:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, this train of thought is not entirely without merit. I believe that Angel was in some way intemeitly involved in paradigms current events, and based on the last episode of the second season it would seem as though she had created the world in which everyone lives. On top of that, Roger (when he addressed Big Venus) suggested that it was either piloted by or acting in accordance with Angel's will. Furthermore, she and Dorothy seem to be the only ones who were not effected by the second event. The only catch is that this theory of yours fails to take into consideration how she willed Gordon Rosewater to have a dream that compelled him to write a book. TomStar81 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Angel does have a weird aura around her, showing up from nowehere almost always knowing what to do. There is good though behind your theory. More importantly (I think), they never revealed her true name. Did they and I wasn't paying attention, or did they not? -- Team Leader 2:22 (02:22) AM, August 17th, 2006

Ending Quotes

Does anyone know of the signifigance of the ending quotes? For example:

• "We have come to terms"
• "No side"

--Salvax 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To Be Continued means that that story's plot isn't over yet and will be continued in another episode. We Have Come To Terms means that that plot is over and done. No side means that there was no point to this story, I think.

I think "No Side" and "We Have Come To Terms" are relevant to the episode plot itself; basically if it says We Have Come To Terms, it means that an agreement was reached between the two parties in the ep itself (that Roger is, assumedly, negotiating between) while No Side means it wasn't solved (meaning that Roger, personally, now has no side in what's happened, since one of the parties is dead or something like that.) I could be wrong, though. Onslaught Six 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Final episode (of Season 2)

Somethings been bugging me and I haven't gotten around to thinking about it until I was going through old tapes the other day and I saw the last 30 seconds of the final episode. There were two versions. I've seen on Adult Swim the ending they air currently, the one was simply the two MegaDeus's walking into each other, yet the original episode aired (when they first played the episode) contained the ending where it wrapped the first minute of the first season's beginning episode where Roger is driving in his car onto the episode's ending (complete with his original dialogue). However Angel and Dorothy are standing on the sidewalk, and Dorothy is wearing her black outfit from her stay at Roger's mansion. This was very confusing, and I couldn't get any solid opinion on this due to the confusing nature of the episode. However I did think that maybe the episode was supposed to end there and the events were wiped from memory of the city again, and it is if nothing happened. However, I do want someone else's take on this. Also if anyone knows why these last few seconds were stripped from the episode they air now, I'd like to know. -- Team Leader, 2:29 (02:29) AM, August 17th 2006

I've heard that AS shaved off the last minute on purpose on subsequent airings to make the possibility of future episodes more plausible and ambigious. The last minute of Act 26 already is supposed to be pretty ambiguous and slightly confusing in nature, but I guess the "We have come to terms" message seemed finite, along with the fact that pretty much everything had gone back to what's considered normal in Paradigm to the audience.--Claude 04:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Republic

Does anyone else think that Big O is partially influenced by Plato’s "The Republic", or am I the only one? TomStar81 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I think it's a bit of a stretch. What's your reasoning, beyond the "watchdogs"? - mako 12:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reaching a little. -CWD 04:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Like the discussion of whether justice is in the interest of the stronger party, or if it should be open to everyone. I think this to be especially true in the second season, when Roger and the military police go against Allen Rosewater. Of course, this train of thought may be the result of my study high; cramming for finals will do that to ya ;) TomStar81 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)